Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NATO after 9/11: Theoretical Perspectives

  • Chapter
NATO beyond 9/11

Part of the book series: New Security Challenges ((NSECH))

Abstract

If 9/11 is to be regarded as a watershed in global politics then it would be logical to assume that NATO, the globe’s most durable, extensive and powerful alliance, would be bound up in that process of transformation. For NATO, 9/11 accelerated changes already in train (namely, the need to focus out of area) and in so doing made possible a role for the alliance (fighting an expeditionary war in Afghanistan, for instance) that would otherwise have been inconceivable. A decade on, NATO’s major powers have modified significantly their assumptions of what can be achieved in far-flung operations driven, in part, by the demanding experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, and, in part, by the operational constraints of defence austerity. These processes have shone a light on NATO. Its complex mission in Afghanistan conducted simultaneously with a range of other operations and initiatives (enlargement, missile defence and partnerships) indicates a body that continues to be adaptable and relevant. Yet, at the same time, the multiplication of tasks (some of which have courted the risk of failure) seemingly betoken an alliance that is directionless and stretched to the limit. In that sense, the period since 9/11 has been yet one more chapter of a familiar story of NATO in crisis. What that means and whether it has substance is a question that has policy, empirical and theoretical relevance; this chapter is primarily concerned with the latter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Derived from J.S. Duffield, C. Michota and A.A. Miller, ‘Alliances’, in P.D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, for instance, B. Obama, ‘Europe and America, Aligned for the Future’, International Herald Tribune, 19 November 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Grant, ‘Does this War Show that NATO No Longer has a Serious Military Role?’, The Independent, 16 October 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Tharoor, ‘Decline of the West’, Time, 28 May 2012, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cited in M. Webber, ‘NATO’s Post — Cold War Operations in Europe’, in J. Sperling and S.V. Papcosma (eds.), NATO after Sixty Years: A Stable Crisis (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2012), p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Abrial (NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation), ‘NATO in a Time of Austerity’, International Herald Tribune, 18 May 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W.J. Theis, Why NATO Endures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. For this charge, see H. Mueler, ‘A Theory of Decay of Security Communities with an Application to the Present State of the Atlantic Alliance’ (Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley), Paper 060409, 2006, pp. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.N. Burns, D.M. Wilson and J. Lightfoot, Anchoring the Alliance (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 2012), p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  10. T. Valasek, ‘Introduction’, in T. Valasek (ed.), All Alone? What US Retrenchment Means for Europe and NATO (London: Centre for European Reform, 2012), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. K.-H. Kamp, ‘The Transatlantic Link after Chicago’, NDC Research Report, 2012, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. Tertais, ‘The Changing Nature of Military Alliances’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 27 (2), 2004, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See T.S. Wilkins, ‘“Alignment” not “Alliance” — the Shifting Paradigm of International Security Cooperation: Toward a Conceptual Taxonomy of Alignment’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 38 (1), 2011, p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Scott Bennett, ‘Testing Alternative Models of Alliance Duration, 1816–1984’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41 (3), 1997, p. 870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. O. Holsti, P.T. Hopmann and J.D. Sullivan, Unity and Disintegration in International Alliances: Comparative Studies (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), pp. 93–94, 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  16. B.M. Russett, ‘An Empirical Typology of International Military Alliances’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 15 (2), 1971, pp. 265–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. G.H. Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997);

    Google Scholar 

  18. S.M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1987);

    Google Scholar 

  19. P.A. Weitsman, Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Olsen and R. Zeckhauser, ‘An Economic Theory of Alliances’, Review of Economic Statistics, Vol. 48 (3), 1966, pp. 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. J. Lepgold, ‘NATO’s Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem’, International Security, Vol. 23 (1), 1998, p. 93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Ringsmose, ‘NATO Burden-Sharing Redux: Continuity and Change after the Cold War’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 31 (2), 2010, pp. 326–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. E. Hallams and B. Schreer, ‘Towards a “Post-American” Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya’, International Affairs, Vol. 88 (2), 2012, pp. 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. See T. Sandler and K. Hartley, The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. I.D. Ivanov, ‘The Relevance of Heterogeneous Clubs in Explaining Contemporary NATO Politics’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Vol. 8 (4), 2010, pp. 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J.R. Deni, The Future of American Landpower: Does Forward Presence Still Matter? The Case of the Army in Europe (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2012), pp. 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  27. W. Park, Defending the West: A History of NATO (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986);

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Wenger, ‘The Politics of Military Planning: Evolution of NATO’s Strategy’, in V. Mastny, S.G. Holtsmark and A. Wenger (eds.), War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War: Threat Perceptions in East and West (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), pp. 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Pressman, Warring Friends: Alliance Restraint in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Joffe, ‘Europe’s American Pacifier’, Foreign Policy, (54), 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J.S. Duffield, ‘NATO’s Functions after the Cold War’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109(5), 1994–1995, pp. 763–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. E.H. Fedder, ‘The Concept of Alliance’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1), 1968, pp. 78–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. P.T. Jackson, ‘Defending the West: Occidentalism and the Formation of NATO’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 11 (3), 2003, pp. 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. S.R. Sloan, NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic Community (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See also B.S. Klein, ‘How the West was One: Representational Politics of NATO’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34 (3), 1990, pp. 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. See, respectively, C. Coker, ‘NATO as a Postmodern Alliance’, in S.P. Ramet and C. Ingerbritsen (eds.), Coming in from the Cold: Changes in US–European Interactions since 1980 (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), pp. 16–30;

    Google Scholar 

  37. P. Cornish, Partnership in Crisis: the US, Europe and the Fall and Rise of NATO (London: the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1997), p. 9;

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Mattelaer, ‘How Afghanistan has Strengthened NATO’, Survival, Vol.53(6), 2011–2012, p.136.

    Google Scholar 

  39. This selection corresponds roughly to the typology of Jack Snyder who suggests that realism, liberalism and idealism (constructivism) are the three dominant theories of IR. See his ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, (145), 2004, pp. 53–62. And for a similar attempt to apply these three theories to NATO see Z. Barany and R. Rauchhaus, ‘Explaining NATO’s Resilience: Is International Relations Theory Useful?’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 32 (2), 2011, pp. 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. S. Rynning, NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation (New York and Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. S. Rynning, ‘NATO: Within and Between European International Society’, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 33 (2), 2011, pp. 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. R. Sil and P.J. Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. K. Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 172.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. J.J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 15 (1), 1990, pp. 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. K. Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, Vol. 18 (2), 1993, pp. 75–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 25 (1), 2000, pp. 19–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. C. Glaser, ‘Structural Realism in a More Complex World’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 29 (3), 2003, p. 409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Some neo-realists argue that unipolarity is temporary, but many agree that unipolarity describes the present and that this state of affairs is likely to persist for the foreseeable future (irrespective of the rising economic and military credentials of China). See S.B. Brooks and W.C. Wohlforth, World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. W.C. Wohlforth, ‘How Not to Evaluate Theories’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56 (1), 2012, pp. 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. For an assessment of the relative power credentials of the United States and China see M. Beckley, ‘China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure’, International Security, Vol.36(3), 2011/2012, pp. 41–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. T.S. Mowle and D.H. Sacko, ‘Global NATO: Bandwagoning in a Unipolar World’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 28 (3), 2007, p. 604.

    Google Scholar 

  52. A. Hyde-Price, European Security in the Twenty-First Century: the Challenge of Multipolarity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), pp. 86–90;

    Google Scholar 

  53. J.J. Mearsheimer, ‘Why is Europe Peaceful Today?’, European Political Science, Vol. 9 (3), 2010, pp. 388–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. S. Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 198–199;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. S. Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, World Politics, Vol. 61 (1), 2009, p. 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. R.A. Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’, International Security, Vol. 30 (1), 2005. J. Howorth and A. Menon, ‘Still Not Pushing Back: Why the European Union is Not Balancing the United States’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 53 (5), 2009, pp. 735–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. R.L. Schweller, ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In’, International Security, Vol. 19 (1), 1994, p. 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. R.J. Art, ‘Europe Hedges its Security Bets’, in T.V. Paul et al. (eds.), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 184–85.

    Google Scholar 

  59. G. Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon: NATO under Unipolarity’, Security Studies, Vol. 15 (2), 2006; T. Ohtomo, ‘Bandwagoning to Dampen Suspicion: NATO and the US–Japan Alliance after the Cold War’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 3 (1), 2003, p. 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. R. O. Keohane and C.N. Murphy, ‘International Institutions’, in M. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 2 (New York and London: Routledge, 1992), p. 871;

    Google Scholar 

  61. J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, ‘Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”’, in R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See C.A. Wallander, H. Haftendorn and R.O. Keohane, ‘Introduction’, in H. Haftendorn, R.O. Keohane and C.A. Wallander (eds.), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  63. P.A. Hall and R.C.R. Taylor, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, Vol. 44 (5), 1996, pp. 944–946;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. R.O. Keohane and L.L. Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, Vol. 20 (1), 1995, pp. 41–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (second edition) (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  66. R.B. McCalla, ‘NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War’, International Organization, Vol. 50 (3), 1996, pp. 462–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. C. Wallander, ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War’, International Organisation, Vol. 54 (4), 2000, pp. 713–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. C.A. Wallander and R.O. Keohane, ‘Risk, Threat and Security Institutions’, in H. Haftendorn, R.O. Keohane and C.A. Wallander (eds.), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  69. S.C. Hofmann and F. Mérand, ‘Regional Organizations à la carte: the Effects of Institutional Elasticity’, in T.V. Paul (ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  70. B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal, ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, in B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal (eds.), The Rational Design of International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  71. A. Menon and J. Welsh, ‘Understanding NATO’s Sustainability: The Limits of Institutionalist Theory’, Global Governance, Vol. 17(1), 2011, pp. 87, 90.

    Google Scholar 

  72. R.O. Keohane, ‘Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism’, International Relations, Vol. 26 (2), 2012, p. 135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. G.J. Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), chapters 6 and 8.

    Google Scholar 

  74. G.J. Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: the Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), pp. 80–81.

    Google Scholar 

  75. D. Tierney, ‘Multilateralism: America’s Insurance Policy Against Loss’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 17 (4), 2010, pp. 655–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. S.E. Kreps, Coalitions of Convenience: United States Military Interventions after the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 11.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  77. For this distinction see T. Balzacq, ‘Constructivism and Securitization Studies’, in M.D. Cavelty and V. Mauer (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), p. 57;

    Google Scholar 

  78. B. Buzan and L. Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 191–199.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. I. Hurd, ‘Constructivism’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 298–300.

    Google Scholar 

  80. The most influential works here are P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996);

    Google Scholar 

  81. M. Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996);

    Google Scholar 

  82. A. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  83. M. Hampton, ‘NATO, Germany, and the United States: Creating Positive Identity in Trans-atlantia’, Security Studies, Vol. 8 (2–3), 1999, p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  84. F. Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 72.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. V.M. Kitchen, The Globalization of NATO: Intervention, Security and Identity (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 26, 118–120.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See also, F. Schimmelfennig, ‘NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation’, Security Studies, Vol.8(2/3), 1998/1999, pp. 198–234.

    Google Scholar 

  87. H. Sjursen, ‘On the Identity of NATO’, International Affairs, Vol. 80 (4), 2004, pp. 699–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. See the discussion of constructivism in G. Hellmann, ‘Inevitable Decline versus Predestined Stability: Disciplinary Explanations of the Evolving Transatlantic Order’, in J. Anderson, G.J. Ikenberry and T. Risse (eds.), The End of the West? Crisis and Change in the Atlantic Order (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  89. M.C. Williams (with I.B. Neumann), Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 73, 76.

    Google Scholar 

  90. A. Behnke, NATO’s Security Discourse after the Cold War: Representing the West (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 180–191.

    Google Scholar 

  91. F. Chernoff, Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts (New York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 38.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  92. S.M. Walt, ‘NATO’s Future (In Theory)’, in P. Martin and M.R. Brawley (eds.), Alliance Politics, Kosovo, and NATO’s War: Allied Force or Forced Allies? (New York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), pp. 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Mark Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, UK

    Ellen Hallams (Lecturer in Defence Studies) (Lecturer in Defence Studies)

  2. Roma Tre University, Italy

    Luca Ratti (Associate Professor in History of International Relations) (Associate Professor in History of International Relations)

  3. University of Ottawa, Canada

    Benjamin Zyla (Assistant Professor) (Assistant Professor)

Copyright information

© 2013 Mark Webber

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Webber, M. (2013). NATO after 9/11: Theoretical Perspectives. In: Hallams, E., Ratti, L., Zyla, B. (eds) NATO beyond 9/11. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation