Advertisement

The Paradoxes of the Liberal Order: Transatlantic Relations and Security Governance

  • Riccardo Alcaro
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

Alcaro argues that the incipient multipolarity is not incompatible with the Western-supported liberal order, as even the most restive among the non-Western powers, such as China and Russia, have a stake in its endurance. He maintains that the transatlantic ability to shape security governance will diminish if relations among great powers become conflictual, largely because of Europe’s modest hard power and lack of strategic cohesion. On the contrary, if centripetal dynamics prevail, the Europeans can make use not only of their individual assets to address functional threats, such as terrorism and regional crises, but also exploit the soft power potential of the European Union, whereby United States power gains greater outreach and impact.

Keywords

International security Transatlantic relations Multipolarity Global governance 

References

  1. Alcaro, R. (2009). The global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism: Big potential, limited impact? The International Spectator, 44(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcaro, R. (2011). Learning from a troubled experience: Transatlantic lessons from the nuclear standoff with Iran. The International Spectator, 46(4), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcaro, R., & Alessandri, E. (2010). Engaging Russia: Prospect for a long-term European security compact. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 191–207.Google Scholar
  4. Alcaro, R., & Bassiri Tabrizi, A. (2014). Europe and Iran’s nuclear issue: The labours and sorrows of a supporting actor. The International Spectator, 49(3), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Global politics and the responsibility to protect: From words to deeds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Biscop, S. (2005). The European security strategy: A global agenda for positive power. Burlington/Aldershot/Hants: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bouchard, C., Peterson, J. & Tocci, N. (Eds.). (2014). Multilateralism in the 21st Century: Europe’s Quest for Effectiveness. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Brzezinski, Z. (2007). Second chance: Three presidents and the crisis of American superpower. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Daalder, I. H. (2003). The end of atlanticism. Survival, 52(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobbins, J., et al. (2003). America’s role in nation-building. From Germany to Iraq. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.Google Scholar
  11. Dobbins, J., et al. (2005). The UN’s role in nation-building. From the Congo to Iraq. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.Google Scholar
  12. Dobbins, J., et al. (2008). Europe’s role in nation-building. From the Balkans to the Congo. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, M. W. (2011). International ethics and the responsibility to protect. International Studies Review, 13(1), 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duchêne, F. (1973). The European community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In M. Kohnstamm & W. Hager (Eds.), A nation writ large? Foreign policy problems before the European community (pp. 1–21). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Feng, Z., Gao, Z., Jiang, Y., Zhao, H., Sun, B., Ouyang, L., Tang, L., Shi, G., & Huangying (2009). China’s new security perceptions and practice. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (Chaillot paper 118, pp. 31–47). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Gaddis, J. (2005). Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ganguly, S. (2014). India in the liberal order. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 83–94). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.Google Scholar
  18. Gegout, C. (2000). The quint: Acknowledging the existence of a big four-US Directoire at the heart of the European Union’s foreign policy decision-making process. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldgeier, J. M. (1999). Not whether but when. The U.S. decision to enlarge NATO. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, C. (1993). The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualising Europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), 305–328.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, C. (1998). Convergence, divergence and dialectics: National foreign policies and the CFSP. In J. Zielonka (Ed.), Paradoxes of European foreign policy (pp. 35–52). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, F., & Gaddy, C. (2013). Mr Putin. An operative in the Kremlin. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. Howorth, J. (2014). European security post-Libya and post-Ukraine: In search of core leadership’ In N. Tocci (Ed.), Imagining Europe. Towards a more united and effective EU (pp. 133–162). Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.Google Scholar
  24. Ikenberry, G. J. (2012). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014a). The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 80–90.Google Scholar
  26. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014b) (Ed.). Power, order, and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Indyk, M. S., Lieberthal, K. G., & O’Hanlon, M. E. (2013). Bending history. Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  28. Janning, J. (2005). Leadership coalitions and change: The role of states in the European Union. International Affairs, 81(4), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, B. (2014). Still ours to lead. America, rising powers, and the tension between rivalry and restraint. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kagan, R. (2012). The world America made. New York: Vintage Book.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, L. S. (2004). NATO divided, NATO united: The evolution of an alliance. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. Keohane, R. O., Nye, J. S., & Hoffmann, S. (Eds.). (1993). After the Cold War. International institutions and state strategies in Europe 1989–1991. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  34. Krauthammer, C. (2003). The unipolar moment revisited. The National Interest, 70, 5–17.Google Scholar
  35. Kreps, S. (2010). Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(3), 200–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kumar, R. (2009). India’s potential role in a new global security consensus. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (Chaillot paper 118, pp. 49–66). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  37. Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one’s world. The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lagadec, E. (2012). Transatlantic relations in the 21st century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Laïdi, Z. (2012). Limited achievements: Obama’s foreign policy. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laїdi, Z. (2014). Towards a post-hegemonic world: The multipolar threat to the multilateral order. International Politics, 51(3), 350–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Manners, I., & Whitman, R. G. (2000). Conclusion. In I. Manners & R. G. Whitman (Eds.), The foreign policies of European Union member states (pp. 243–271). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Matthews, M. W. (2008). Tracking the emergence of a new international norm: The responsibility to protect and the crisis in Darfur. Boston College and Comparative Law Review, 31, 142.Google Scholar
  44. McCalla, R. B. (1996). Nato’s persistence after the Cold War. International Organization, 46(4), 445–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mead, W. R. (2014). The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 69–79.Google Scholar
  46. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton and Norton.Google Scholar
  47. Menon, A. (2014). The JCMS annual review lecture: Divided and declining? Europe in a changing world. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(Issue Supplement 1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merlingen, M., & Ostrauskaite, R. (2006). European Union peacebuilding and policing. Abbingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Naìm, M. (2009). Minilateralism: The magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy, 173, 136–137.Google Scholar
  50. Nugent, N. (Ed.). (2004). European Union enlargement. Houndmills/Basingshire/Hapshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Nuttall, S. J. (2000). European foreign policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ortega, M. (Ed.). (2005). The European Union and the United Nations: Partners in effective multilateralism (Chaillot paper 78). Paris: Institute for Security Studies, European Union.Google Scholar
  53. Peterson, J., & Steffenson, R. (2009). Transatlantic institutions: Can partnership be engineered? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson, J., Doherty, R., Van Cutsem, M., Wallace, H., Epstein, R., Burwell, F., & Quinlan, J. P. (2005). Review of the framework for relations between the European Union and the United States—An independent study. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  55. Potter, W., & Shields, J. M. (1997). Dismantling the Cold War: U.S. and NIS perspectives on the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ronzitti, N. (Ed.). (2009, March). Coordinating global and regional efforts to combat WMD terrorism (IAI Quaderni English series 15). http://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/coordinating-global-and-regional-efforts-combat-wmd-terrorism
  57. Rosamond, B. (2014). Three ways of speaking Europe to the world: Markets, peace, cosmopolitan duties and the EU’s normative power. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruggie, J. G. (1994). Third try at world order? America and multilateralism after the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 109(4), 553–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruggie, J. G. (1996). Winning the peace: America and world order in the new era. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, P. (Ed.). (2008). A hybrid relationship: Transatlantic security cooperation beyond NATO. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Schwegmann, C. (2003). Die Jugoslawien-Kontaktgruppe in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  62. Schwegmann, C. (2005). Kontaktgruppen und EU-3 Verhandlungen (SWP Aktuell 62).Google Scholar
  63. Simon, L., & Fiott, D. (2014). Europe after the US Pivot. Orbis, 58(3), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, H. (2002). European Union foreign policy. What it is and what it does. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  65. Sorj, B. (2014). Brazil and the liberal order in the 21st century. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 71–82). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.Google Scholar
  66. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2014, April). Trends in military expenditure, SIPRI fact sheet. http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476
  67. Wallander, C. A. (2000). Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War. International Organization, 54(4), 705–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winner, A. C. (2005). The proliferation security initiative: The new face of interdiction. The Washington Quarterly, 28(2), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wrobel, P. (2009). Brazil’s approach to security in the 21st century. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (EUISS Chaillot paper 118, pp. 15–30). Paris: EUISS.Google Scholar
  71. Xiang, L. (2014). China and the international “liberal” (Western) order. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 107–120). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.Google Scholar
  72. Yost, D. S. (1998). NATO transformed. The alliance’s new role in international security. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.Google Scholar
  73. Zielonka, I. (1998). Explaining Euro-paralysis: Why Europe is unable to act in international politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Alcaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Affari InternazionaliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations