Abstract
Having outlined in the previous chapter the context of NATO’s recent development, here we move towards a somewhat more abstract treatment of the Alliance. Our purpose is to elaborate a number of theoretically derived propositions geared towards our central concern: the question of NATO’s regeneration or decline. The propositions outlined below are offered in the spirit of theoretical pluralism and are drawn from three well-known IR theories: neo-realism, neoliberal institutionalism and social constructivism. Our intention here is not to demonstrate the supremacy of any one theory or another but to fashion a comprehensive view of NATO through a tailored application of all three. This approach is not without its problems and some would reject it outright. It is, therefore, justified at some length here. Before we consider theory, however, our first task is to define NATO itself. Such an undertaking is crucial: how one defines NATO determines, in our view, how it ought to be studied.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
G. Evans with J. Newnham, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (London: Penguin Books, 1998), p. 16.
J. Duffield, ‘The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Alliance Theory’, in N. Woods (ed.), Explaining International Relations since 1945 (Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 338.
C. Snyder, ‘Regional Security Structures’, in C. A. Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Security and Strategy (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), p. 105.
Snyder, ‘Regional Security Structures’, p. 106.
R. V. Dingman, ‘Theories of, and Approaches to, Alliance Politics’, in P. G. Lauren (ed.), Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy (New York: The Free Press, 1979), p. 249.
G. H. Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 4;
E. H. Fedder, ‘The Concept of Alliance’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12(1), 1968, pp. 78–9.
J. D. Morrow, ‘Alliances: Why Write them Down?’ Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 3, 2003, p. 65.
‘Text of the Report of the Committee of Three on Non-military Cooperation in NATO’, Approved by the North Atlantic Council, December 1956, paras 6, 36–7, at www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b561213a.htm.
D. P. Calleo, ‘Early American Views of NATO: Then and Now’, in L. Freedman (ed.), The Troubled Alliance: Atlantic Relations in the 1980s (London: Heinemann, 1983), p. 11.
‘Text of the Report of the Committee of Three on Non-military Cooperation in NATO’, para. 11.
‘Declaration on Atlantic Relations issued by the North Atlantic Council’, Ottawa, June 1974, para. 4, at www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b740619a.htm.
‘Alliance Defence Policy — Ministerial Guidance 1975’, Annex to Final Communique, DPC Ministerial Meeting, May 1975, para. 3 in NATO: Facts and Figures (Brussels: NATO Information Office, 1978), pp. 346–7.
‘Washington Statement on East–West Relations Issued by the North Atlantic Council in Ministerial Session’, Washington, DC, May 1984, para. 4, at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b840531a.htm.
‘Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic Alliance’, London, July 1990, at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b900706a.htm.
Resolution of the North Atlantic Council, 26 September 1950, cited in S. Weber, ‘Shaping the Postwar Balance of Power: Multilateralism in NATO’, in J. G. Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 248.
NATO: Facts and Figures, p. 107.
C. Wallander, ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War’, International Organization, Vol. 54(4), 2000, pp. 713–16.
What is ‘out of area’ for NATO is defined by implication in Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. In that clause the application of NATO’s collective defence provisions are held to apply to the territories of ‘the Parties in Europe or North America […] the islands under the jurisdiction of any Party in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer’ and to forces, vessels or aircraft stationed on these territories as well as in the Mediterranean Sea. What lies beyond the confines of this definition is thus ‘out of area’.
W. H. Taft IV, ‘European Security: Lessons Learned from the Gulf War’, NATO Review, Vol. 39(3), 1991, pp. 16–21.
J. Pressman, Warring Friends: Alliance Restraint in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 27–9.
By which is understood the destabilizing influence on European order of Germany’s great power status. The division of Germany after World War II was one further method for dealing with this. Although over time, the division of Germany came to constitute a ‘German problem’ in its own right given its destabilizing impact on relations between the Communist bloc and NATO.
J. Joffe, ‘Europe’s American Pacifier’, Foreign Policy, No. 54, 1984.
J. Duffield, ‘NATO’s Functions after the Cold War’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109(5), 1994–5, pp. 772–8.
Fedder, ‘The Concept of Alliance’, pp. 78–9.
‘Text of the Report of the Committee of Three’, para. 12.
P. T. Jackson, ‘Defending the West: Occidentalism and the Formation of NATO’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 11(3), 2003, pp. 223–52.
S. R. Sloan, NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic Community (Lanham etc.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 74.
See also B. S. Klein, ‘How the West was One: Representational Politics of NATO’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34(3), 1990, pp. 311–25.
The Warsaw Pact developed integrated institutions to an even greater degree than did NATO. However, compared to other alliances, NATO’s formal institutions were unique.
NATO: Facts and Figures, pp. 204–41.
‘Active Engagement, Modern Defence. Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon’, 19 November 2010, paras 4, 7–15, 20, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68580.htm; ‘The Alliance’s Strategic Concept’, Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 24 April 1999, para. 10, at www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official l_texts_27433.htm.
Alongside various iterations of the Strategic Concept, other keynote documents include the 2006 ‘Comprehensive Political Guidance’, the 2009 ‘Declaration on Alliance Security’ and the various Communiqués of summits of Heads of State and Government.
NATO, Public Diplomacy Division, NATO Transformed, Brussels, 2004, pp. 3, 44.
‘Active Engagement, Modern Defence’, paras 28–9.
Morrow, ‘Alliances: Why Write them Down?’ p. 78. George Modelski reached a similar view as early as 1963. NATO, he argued, ‘cannot serve as the prototype of alliances’. See his ‘The Study of Alliances: A Review’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 7(4), 1963, p. 771.
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 etc.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2002), pp. 16–30;
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;
A. Mattelaer, ‘How Afghanistan has Strengthened NATO’, Survival, Vol. 53(6), 2011–12, p. 136.
Speeches by Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, 2 February 2005, and 24 May 2005, at http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2007/index.html.
Our three selected theories correspond 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, No. 145, 2004, pp. 53–62. Zoltan Barany and Robert Rauchhaus have, like us, utilized these three theories in order to consider NATO and have offered a similar rationale for doing so. Their study, however, does not undertake the systematic and extensive testing of propositions which we undertake here. See their ‘Explaining NATO’s Resilience: Is International Relations Theory Useful?’ Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 32(2), 2011, pp. 286–307.
T. Sandler and K. Hartley, The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1999);
S. Rynning, NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
On these grounds, we have not pursued an elaboration of Critical Theory despite its growing standing within the field of Security Studies. We are in agreement with Ken Booth that the merits of the sub-field of Critical Security Studies (CSS) lie in critique (questioning ‘the knowledge-claims of the powerful’) and reconstruction (posing emancipatory alternatives to ‘ business-as-usual’ practices of security). These two tasks, while valid in their own right, offer little practical guidance for the sort of exercise undertaken here, namely the investigation of a specific research question relating to NATO’s development. Indeed, CSS, according to Booth, rejects the very basis for such investigation, considering it infused with the false claims to objectivity of positivist Social Science, divorced from the practice of emancipation and ‘implicated in the replication of associated practices’ of world politics. That said, Booth also concedes that CSS ‘is a relatively new approach’ that has yet to fully engage with ‘detailed policy analysis’ and ‘discussions about security in concrete circumstances’. Consequently, unlike the three theories we have selected, CSS offers little direct analysis of NATO and no clear propositions relevant to our own analysis of the Alliance. See K. Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 172, 244–5, 264–6.
G. Hellmann, ‘A Brief Look at the Recent History of NATO’s Future’, in I. Peters (ed.), Transatlantic Tug-of-War: Prospects for US-European Cooperation (Münster: Lit-Verlag, 2006). Hellmann refers to this approach as ‘ trans-paradigmatic pragmatism’. A similar position, dubbed ‘theoretical eclecticism’ is taken by C. Hemmer and P. Katzenstein who combine realist, liberal and constructivist approaches when studying NATO.
See Hemmer and Katzenstein, ‘Why is there No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism and the Origins of Multilateralism’, International Organization, Vol. 56(3), 2002, pp. 575–607.
See, for instance, A. Hyde-Price, European Security in the Twenty-First Century: The Challenge of Multipolarity (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2007), pp. 8–9.
C. Wight, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 42–3.
B. Buzan, From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 25.
Buzan, From International to World Society, p. 25. See also R. Sil and P. J. Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), Chapters 1–2.
A. Moravcsik, ‘Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real not Metaphysical’, International Studies Review, Vol. 5(1), 2003, p. 132.
P. J. Katzenstein and N. Okawara, ‘Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism’, International Security, Vol. 26(3), 2001/02, p. 183.
J. Grieco, ‘Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics’, in M. W. Doyle and G. J. Ikenberry (eds), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 164–8;
B. Frankel, ‘Restating the Realist Case: An Introduction’, in B. Frankel (ed.), Realism: Restatements and Renewal (London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 1996), pp. xiv–xx.
Snyder, Alliance Politics, pp. 4–5.
Neo-realists draw a distinction between alliances as a response to power (a position associated with Kenneth Waltz) and as a response to threat (a position associated with Stephen Walt). For instance, during the Cold War, Canada, Turkey and the states of western Europe did not seek to balance the power of the US even though it possessed capabilities sufficient to overwhelm them. Rather they sought through NATO to balance the Soviet Union. As Stephen Walt explains, ‘[a]lthough the distribution of power is an extremely important factor, the level of threat is also affected by geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions.’ The Soviet Union by these criteria posed more of a threat than did the US. Walt’s analysis is generally regarded as an important advance on Waltz and we follow his terminology in this section. See Walt, The Origins of Alliances. The quotation is from p. 5.
S. 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: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), pp. 12–13.
Snyder, Alliance Politics, p. 16.
K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA etc.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979), pp. 88–101.
J. Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 17, 121.
Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 125–7.
G. H. Snyder, ‘Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44(1), 1990, p. 118.
Snyder, Alliance Politics, p. 19.
Snyder, ‘Alliance Theory’, p. 121.
G. H. Snyder, ‘The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics’, World Politics, Vol. 36(4), 1984, pp. 466–7.
These are summarized in S. Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, World Politics, Vol. 61(1), 2009, pp. 86–120.
Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, pp. 103–4.
R. L. Schweller, ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In’, International Security, Vol. 19(1), 1994, p. 96.
Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, p. 111.
Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, pp. 116–17.
G. Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon: NATO under Unipolarity’, Security Studies, Vol. 15(2), 2006, p. 273.
Some neo-realists argue that unipolarity is temporary, but most agree that uni-polarity describes the present and that this state of affairs is likely to persist for the foreseeable future. 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), Chapter 2.
J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 15(1), 1990, pp. 5–6.
K. Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, Vol. 18(3), 1993, pp. 75–6.
K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 25(1), 2000, pp. 19–20.
C. Glaser, ‘Structural Realism in a More Complex World’, Review of International Studies Vol. 29(3), 2003, p. 409.
Hyde-Price, European Security in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 86–90; K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, pp. 20–5; J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘Why is Europe Peaceful Today?’ European Political Science Vol. 9(3), 2010, pp. 388–90.
T. S. Mowle and D. H. Sacko, ‘Global NATO: Bandwagoning in a Unipolar World’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 28(3), 2007, p. 604.
J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘The Future of America’s Continental Commitment’, in G. Lundestad (ed.), No End to Alliance. The United States and Western Europe: Past, Present and Future (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 221–42;
S. Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 198–9.
K. Kagan, ‘Offensive vs. Defensive Realism and Recent US Foreign Policy’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, March 2006.
R. J. Art, ‘Europe Hedges its Security Bets’, in T. V. Paul, J. J. Wirtz and M. Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 184–5.
Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon’, passim; 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.
G. Hellmann and R. Wolf, ‘Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO’, Security Studies, Vol. 3(1), 1993, p. 18.
R. Rupp, NATO after 9/11: An Alliance in Continuing Decline (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 1–22, 209–24.
B. A. Simmons and L. L. Martin, ‘International Organizations and Institutions’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London etc.: Sage Publications, 2002), pp. 192–7.
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.
P. A. Hall and R. C. R. Taylor, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, Vol. 44(5), 1996, pp. 944–6;
R. O. Keohane and L. L. Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, Vol. 20(1), 1995, pp. 41–2.
R. O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (second edition) (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 51–5; Keohane and Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, pp. 39–51.
S. E. Kreps, Coalitions of Convenience: United States Military Interventions after the Cold War (Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 10.
C. Lipson, ‘International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs’, World Politics, Vol. 37(1), 1984, pp. 12–18.
C. A. Wallander, Mortal Friends, Best Enemies: German-Russian Cooperation after the Cold War (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 5.
Wallander, ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability’, pp. 713–17.
R. B. McCalla, ‘NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War’, International Organization, Vol. 50(3), 1996, pp. 462–3.
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 etc.: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 40–7.
The quote is from S. Walt, ‘Why Alliances Endure or Collapse’, Survival, Vol. 39(1), 1997, p. 166. See also Wallander and Keohane, ‘Risk, Threat and Security Institutions’, p. 24.
T. Forsberg and G. P. Herd, Divided West: European Security and the Transatlantic Relationship (Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), p. 26.
O. Young, ‘The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Hard Cases and Critical Variables’, in J. N. Rosenau and E-O. Czempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 162–3.
A. Hasenclever, P. Mayer and V. Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 41–3. Norm (as opposed to policy) compliance is considered in the following section on social constructivism.
This is an important condition. It means that when judging compliance in NATO we are not concerned with cases where the Alliance failed to reach agreement (as, for instance, over Iraq in 2003) but rather cases where, having reached agreement, Allies have then failed to follow through.
L. L. Martin and B. A. Simmons, ‘Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions’, International Organization, Vol. 52(4), 1998, p. 752.
I. Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, Vol. 53(2), 1999, p. 387.
J. S. Duffield, ‘International Regimes and Alliance Behavior: Explaining NATO Conventional Force Levels’, International Organization, Vol. 46(4), 1992, pp. 819–55;
A. A. Stein, ‘Neoliberal Institutionalism’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 212.
Keohane, After Hegemony, pp. 98–106.
Derived from 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 etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 21–39.
On processes of (de)institutionalization, see B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal, ‘Rational Design: Looking Back to Move Forward’, in B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal (eds), The Rational Design of International Institutions, pp. 316–17, and W. R. Scott, Institutions and Organizations (second edition) (Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage Publications, 2001), pp. 182–4.
E. Kolodziej, Security and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 268–9.
A. Wendt, ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, Vol. 20(1), 1995, p. 78.
T. Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, Vol. 23(1), 1998, p. 191.
T. Risse-Kappen, Cooperation among Democracies: The European Influence on US Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 30.
M. Hampton, ‘NATO, Germany, and the United States: Creating Positive Identity in Trans-atlantia’, Security Studies, Vol. 8(2–3), 1999, p. 239.
F. Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 72.
V. M. Kitchen, ‘Argument and Identity Change in the Atlantic Security Community’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 40(1), 2009, p. 109.
R. Moore, ‘NATO’s Mission for the New Millennium: A Value-based Approach to Building Security’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 23(1), 2002, p. 25.
P. Van Ham, ‘Security and Culture, or, Why NATO Won’t Last’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 32(4), 2001, pp. 393–406.
T. Risse, ‘Beyond Iraq: Challenges to the Transatlantic Security Community’, Working Paper, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, John Hopkins University, 2003, pp. 6–7; A. Gheciu, ‘Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe”’, International Organization, Vol. 59(4), 2005, pp. 973–1012.
R. Moore, NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World (Westport, CT and London: Praeger Security International, 2007), pp. 96, 109, 142–8;
F. Schimmelfennig, ‘Functional Form, Identity-driven Cooperation: Institutional Designs and Effects in Post-Cold War NATO’, in A. Acharya and A. I. Johnston (eds), Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 148.
E. Adler, ‘The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post-Cold War Transformation’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 14(2), 2008, p. 196.
V. Kitchen, The Globalization of NATO: Intervention, Security and Identity (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010), p. 119.
Schimmelfennig refers to a norm as ‘an idea that defines a collective standard of proper behaviour […] of actors [as well as] the appropriate means of action.’ See his The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, p. 71.
T. Risse-Kappen, ‘Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO’, in P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 368–9.
H. Sjursen, ‘On the Identity of NATO’, International Affairs, Vol. 80(4), 2004, pp. 699–700.
Sjursen, ‘On the Identity of NATO’, p. 702.
Hellmann, ‘A Brief Look’, p. 17.
Scott, Institutions and Organizations, p. 182.
B. O. Knutsen, ‘NATO and the Changing Nature of the Transatlantic Security Community’ (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment) Report No.70, 2007, pp. 3, 21–3 at .
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Mark Webber, James Sperling and Martin A. Smith
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Webber, M., Sperling, J., Smith, M.A. (2012). Thinking NATO through Theoretically. In: NATO’s Post-Cold War Trajectory. New Security Challenges Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137271617_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137271617_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28125-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-27161-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)