Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CSDP and Democratic Legitimacy: Public Opinion’s Support in Times of Crisis

  • Chapter
Managing Crises, Making Peace

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

Abstract

The issue of legitimacy lies at the core of the debate on policy integration in the European Union (EU). In the specific area of security and defence, the role of institutional settings or the normative and discursive foundations of legitimacy have been widely discussed (Bono, 2006; Mayntz, 2010; Schmidt, 2013; Stie, 2010). Less extensive is research on the more political and sociological meaning of legitimacy (Battistelli et al., 2012), which is related to the democratic process of policy legitimisation. As security policies in general, and peace operations in particular, are highly political and ideological in nature, and as their objectives go far beyond the halting of violence or the management of open conflicts, they have to be legitimate.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
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.

References

  • Anderson C. J. (1998) ‘When in Doubt, Use Proxies: Attitudes Toward Domestic Politics and Support for European Integration’, Comparative Political Studies, 31, 569–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson S. B. (2013) ‘Mission Impossible. Why Crisis Management Missions Do Not Increase the Visibility of the European Union’, KFG WorkingPapers, 58, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond G. (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy (Harcourt Brace).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council (2013) 19/20 December 2013. Part I paragraphs 1–22 of the European Council conclusions, Brussels, 19 December.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEAS (2013) ‘Final Report by the High Representative/Head of the EDA on the Common Security and Defence Policy’, Brussels, 15 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald D. P. (1999) ‘Inward Bound. Domestic Institutions and Military Conflicts’, International Organization, 53, 3, 469–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli F. (2012) ‘I fattori sociali delle opinion sulla guerra’ in Battistelli et al. Opinioni sulla guerra. L’opinione pubblica italiana e internazionale di fronte all’uso della forza (Milan: Franco Angeli), 30–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli F., Ammendola T. and Galantino M.G. (1999) ‘The Fuzzy Environment and Postmodern Soldiers: The Motivations of the Italian Contingent in Bosnia’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 10, 2, 138–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli, F., Ammendola T. and Greco L. (2008) Manuale di sociologia militare (Milano: Angeli).

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli F., Galantino M. G., Lucianetti L. F. and Striuli L. (2012) Opinioni sulla guerra. L’opinione pubblica italiana e internazionale di fronte all’uso della forza (Milan: Franco Angeli).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci P. and Conti N. (2012) ‘Introduzione: europeismo, euroscetticismo’ in Bellucci P. and Conti N. (eds), Gli italiani e l’Europa. Opinione pubblica, élite politiche e media (Roma: Carocci), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci P. and Serricchio F. (2012) ‘Cosa pensano I cittadini dell’Europa’ in Bellucci P. and Conti N. (eds) Gli italiani e l’Europa. Opinione pubblica, élite politiche e media (Roma: Carocci), 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton C. J. (2007) ‘The Perils of Performance: EU Foreign Policy and the Problem of Legitimization’, Perspectives: Review of International Affairs, 28, 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bono G. (2006) ‘Challenges of Democratic Oversight of EU Security Policy’, European Security, 15, 4, 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers S. L. (2000) The Media at War. Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth Century (London: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspary W. R. (1970) ‘The Mood Theory: A Study of Public Opinion and Foreign Policy’, American Political Science Review, 64, 536–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Converse P. E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’ in Apter D. E. (ed.), Ideology and Its Discontents (New York: Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse P. E. (1970) ‘Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue’ in Tufte E. R. (ed.), Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), 168–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2008) Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy — Providing Security in a Changing World, S407/08, 11 December 2008, in http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cros_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/104630.pdf, last visited 1 October 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Foreign Relations (2012) Public Opinion on Global Issues. Chapter 2: World Opinion on International Institutions, 16 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dandeker C. and Gow J. (2000) ‘Military Culture and Strategic Peacekeeping’ in Schmidl E. A. (ed.) Peace Operation between War and Peace, (London: Frank Cass), 58–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch K. W. (1966) ‘Integration and Arms Control in the European Political Environment: A Summary Report’, American Political Science Review, 60, 2, 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg R. C. and Dalton R. J. (1993) ‘Europeans and the European Community: The Dynamics of Public Support for European Integration’, International Organization, 47, 4, 507–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk C. and Franklin M. (2004) ‘Potential for Contestation on European Matters at National Elections in Europe’ in Marks G. and Steenbergen M. (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 32–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Entman R. M. (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy (Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson R. S., McKuen M. B. and Stimson J. A. (2001) The Macro Polity (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Everts P. P. (2002) Democracy and Military Force (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel M. J. and Anderson C. J. (2002) ‘The Structure of Citizen Attitudes and the European Political Space’, Comparative Political Studies, 35, 893–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel M. J. and Palmer H. (1995) ‘Understanding Variation in Public Support for European Integration’, European Journal of Political Research, 27, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galantino M. G. (2003) ‘Work Motivation and the Peacekeeper’ in Britt T. W. and Adler A. B. The Psychology of the Peacekeeper: Lessons from the Field (Westport, London: Praeger), 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galantino M. G. (2010) ‘Sicurezza internazionale e opinione pubblica: il caso del Kosovo’ in Galantino M.G., La società della sicurezza. La costruzione sociale della sicurezza in situazioni di emergenza (Milano: Angeli), 33–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer J. G. (1996) From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls. A Theory of Democratic Leadership (New York: Columbia University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn C. J. et al. (1999) Public Opinion (Boulder, London: Westview Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix S. (1999) The Political System of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti O. R. (1992) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood C. (2007) ‘What Happens When Transparency Meets Blame-Avoidance?’, Public Management Review, 9, 2, 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghes L. and Marks G. (2008) ‘A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science, 39, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurwitz J. and Peffley M. (1987) ‘How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured’, American Political Science Review, 81, 1099–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart R. (1970) ‘Cognitive Mobilisation and European Identity’, Comparative Politics, 3, 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isernia P. (2008) ‘Present at Creation: Italian Mass Support for European Integration in the Formative Years’, European Journal of Political Research, 47, 383–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isernia P. and Everts P. (2006) ‘European Public Opinion on Security Issues’, European Security, 15, 4, 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isernia P., Juhasz Z. and Rattinger H. (2002) ‘Foreign Policy and the Rational Public in Comparative Perspective’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs L. R. (1992) ‘The Recoil Effect: Public Opinion and Policy Making in the United States and Britain’, Comparative Politics, 24, 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs L. R. and Shapiro R. Y. (2000) Politicians Don’tPander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jentleson B. W. and Britton R. L. (1998) ‘Still Pretty Prudent: Post Cold-War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42, 4, 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhasz Z. (2001) ‘German Public Opinion and the Use of Force in the Early Nineties’ in Everts Ph. P. and Isernia P. (eds) Public Opinion and the International Use of Force (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernic F., Callaghan J. and Manigart P. (2002) Public Opinion on European Security and Defense (Bern: Peter Lang).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurowska X. (2008) ‘The Role of ESDP Operations’ in Merlingen M. and Ostrauskaite R. (eds) European Security and Defence Policy. An Implementation Perspective (New York: Routledge), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell H. (1927) Propaganda Technique in the World War (London: Kegan Paul).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann I. A. (1999) Peacekeeping and Public Information: Caught in the Crossfire (London: Frank Cass).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg L. N. and Scheingold S. A. (1970) Europe’s Would-Be Polity. Patterns of Change in the European Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann W. (1922) Public Opinion (Harcourt Brace).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2005) ‘Working Document Relating to Point 5 of the agenda: Presidency Non-paper — Promoting the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)’, 11 March, in http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_ travail/2005 /03/18definfo/index. html, last visited January 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes P. C. (2012) ‘Europe À La Carte? Public Support for Policy Integration in an Enlarged European Union’ in Sanders D., Magalhaes P. and Toka G. (eds) Citizens and the European Polity. Mass Attitudes Towards the European and National Polities (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 212–244.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Manza J. and Cook F. L. (2002) ‘The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy. The State of the Debate’ in Manza J., Cook F. L. and Page B. J. (eds) Navigating Public Opinion. Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks G. and Steenbergen M. (2004) (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R. (2010) ‘Legitimacy and Compliance inTransnational Governance’, MPIfG Working Paper, 10, 5 (Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller J. E. (1973) War, Presidents and Public Opinion (New York: Wiley).

    Google Scholar 

  • Page B. I. and Shapiro R. Y. (1992) The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trend in Americans’ Policy Preferences (Chicago: Chicago University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters D. (2011) ‘A Divided Union? Public Opinion and the EU’s Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy’, RECON Online Working Paper, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen T. (1991) ‘Public Opinion, Domestic Structures and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies’, World Politics, 43, 479–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf F. W. (1999) Governing in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott R. (1998) ‘Policy, Subsidiarity, and Legitimacy’ in Niedermayer O. and Sinnott R. (eds) Public Opinion and Internationalized Governance (New York: Oxford University Press), 246–276.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Signorelli S. (2012) ‘The EU and public opinions: a love-hate relationship?’, Studies & Reports, 93 (Paris: Notre Europe Jacques Delors Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt V. A. (2013) ‘Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and “Throughput”’, Political Studies, 61, 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman P. M., Brody R. A. and Tetlock P. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stie A. E. (2010) ‘Decision-Making Void of Democratic Qualities? An Evaluation of the EU’s Second Pillar Decision-Making Procedure’, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen J. and Schmitt H. (2004) ‘Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union’, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 45, 2, 377–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transatlantic Trends (2004) Topline Data 2004, http://trends.gmfus.org/files/archived/doc/2004_English_top.pdf, date accessed 5 March 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transatlantic Trends (2013) Topline Data 2013, http://trends.gmfus.org/files/2013/09/TT-TOPLINE-DATA.pdf, date accessed 14 March 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner W. (2005) ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of ESDP’, Occasional Paper, 57 (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz K. N. (1967) Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics. The American and British Experience (London-Harlow: Longmans Green and Co.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B. and Kielhorn A. (1999) ‘Which Competencies for Which Political Level?’ in Katz R. S. and Wessels B. (eds) The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 174–196.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller J. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Maria Grazia Galantino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Unitelma Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy

    Maria Grazia Galantino

  2. University of Coimbra, Portugal

    Maria Raquel Freire

Copyright information

© 2015 Maria Grazia Galantino

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galantino, M.G. (2015). CSDP and Democratic Legitimacy: Public Opinion’s Support in Times of Crisis. In: Galantino, M.G., Freire, M.R. (eds) Managing Crises, Making Peace. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137442253_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation