When ties do not bind: The failure of institutional binding in NATO Russia relations
Russia and NATO have failed to establish binding institutional arrangements and they are now locked in increasingly dangerous security competition. A closer look at two issue areas where their efforts at binding have failed—NATO enlargement and missile defence—shows that Russia and NATO find themselves facing a ‘catch 22’. They need binding arrangements to overcome the relative gains problems that inhibit security cooperation, yet their concerns about relative gains prevent them from establishing these arrangements in the first place. To overcome this dilemma, NATO and Russia have to craft binding arrangements that seriously address each side’s concerns about relative gains. Less formal and institutionalized binding arrangements may better serve this goal. Such arrangements will not put an immediate end to security competition, but they will help them build a higher level of trust, allowing them to gradually develop deeper and more comprehensive binding arrangements.
The book undertakes to assess whether political realism as an International Relations theory still helps us to understand the foreign policies of key European actors. The contributors ask whether foreign policy actors in Europe understand the international system and behave as realists. They ask what drives their behaviour, how they construct material capabilities and to what extent they see material power as the means to ensure survival in a post-Cold War context apparently marked by growing instability. The contributors use or contest realism in its different forms in order identify continuity or change in the foreign policy of key European actors.
This volume examines the complex international system of the twenty first century from a variety of perspectives. Proceeding from critical theoretical perspectives and incorporating case studies, the chapters focus on broad trends as well as micro-realities of a Post-Westphalian international system. The process of transformation and change of the international system has been an ongoing cumulative process. Many forces including conflict, technological innovation, and communication have contributed to the creation of a transnational world with political, economic, and social implications for all societies. Transnationalism functions both as an integrative factor and one which exposes the existing and the newly emerging divisions between societies and cultures and between nations and states. The chapters in this volume demonstrate that re-thinking fundamental assumptions as well as theoretical and methodological premises is central to understanding the dynamics of interdependence.
The legitimacy of NATO’s war against Serbia in March 1999 has been widely debated. In the previous chapter, Carl Ceulemans concludes that justice is on the side of NATO’s military campaign. But his analysis is not the only one possible within the framework of Just War Theory. In the following, a different analysis is presented. It shows that while operating within the framework of Just War Theory one can arrive at quite different conclusions from his.
The author looks at the airbase on the (Portugal) as a showcase of America's attitude to its lesser NATO partners, and a demonstration of how an individual nation can use the home field advantage to play with the superpower and a military alliance at its peak in the modern multipolar world.
Over the last quarter of the century relations between Russia and Poland are balancing between trying to understand the burden of mutual guilt and a desire to construct non-emotional pragmatic relations. Sources of tension vary. In particular, it is the desire of Poland to position itself as a valued player in NATO and the EU and the role distance between the two countries in IR system, which does not allow Russia to maintain an equal political dialogue with Poland. In fact, Poland is not afraid of a direct threat from Russia, but the worst scenario is the one in which Russia without changing the content of its imperial policy can be accepted as a full partner in the international community. The evolution of Russian statehood and national specifics of democracy is largely determined the assessment of the prospects of Russian politics in Poland. The mistake of Polish diplomacy last years was that it took no direct efforts to improve relations with Russia, but only tried to impose the dialogue on Russian authorities. Diplomatic methods were designed to hurt Russian interests and to create a topic for discussion. In response, after 2006 Russia chose the tactic of ignoring Poland. But, ignoring Polish authorities, Russian politicians acted similarly with other political forces. In Poland among influential political forces, there was and there is still no loyalty to Russia. For Russian interests it is no matter who are or will be in power in Poland. However as a rule, it is an important factor that foreign policy decisions are de facto within the competences of the President and the government, as well as experiencing a significant influence of the parliamentary forces. Recent trends show no tangible innovations in bilateral programme. But innovations appear in multilateral and conflict enough issues, such as deployment of US missile defense system in Poland or Polish supervision of "Eastern Partnership" programme. The main problem is low self-sufficiency of bilateral relations and excessive influence of third countries. Any efforts to normalize bilateral relations will be meaningless until the weight of bilateral relations really increases to each of the party.
Russia-Polish relations, foreign policy of Poland, Polish-American relations, EU, Common Foreign and Security Policy, NATO
This paper analyzes the role of Russia in nonproliferation global efforts, providing a comprehensive overview on Russian nonproliferation, disarmament and arms control policies. With this aim, it will review the main strategic Russian documents on this topic, its participation in nonproliferation regimes and international initiatives, as well as its political approach to the topic. Russia's role in the Iranian and North Korean nuclear challenges as the main current nuclear proliferation concerns is examined. Based on current international engagement and domestic rules and statements, the paper shows that Russia is, at present, a non-revisionist pragmatic actor; but one that is ready to defy the established legal and political order if a threat to its security or interest is present.
Ce numéro est consacré à l’Otan dont la France est un pays membre fondateur de l’Alliance atlantique comme de l’Union européenne et un pays partenaire historique de la Russie. Ce thème est d’une grande actualité pour ces deux pays aux extrémités des espaces de l’Atlantique à l’Oural, cher au général de Gaulle et attaches à la sécurité et a la stabilité de l’Europe continentale. Dans ce numéro, on trouvera un article du rédacteur en chef de l’édition française, Jean Dufourcq, qui aborde la question de la place de l’Alliance atlantique. La question de la sécurité de l’Europe est également posée : comment penser la sécurité et la défense d’un espace européen composite ? Les relations de l’Otan avec la Russie restent marquées par une méfiance réciproque malgré le redémarrage voulu par le Président américain, il y a deux ans ; comment vont se développer ces relations ? Vous trouverez des pistes pour répondre à cette question avec une analyse de Jean-Christophe Romer. La nécessité d’une réflexion sur une défense européenne est abordée par Arnaud Danjean. La mise en place du bouclier antimissiles, et ses conséquences, est une question analysée par l’article de Vivien Pertusot. La place de la dissuasion nucléaire dans l’Otan et le nucléaire, un autre sujet important pour un pays qui possède la bombe, est explorée dans un texte signé d’Emmanuel Nal. Un espace géographique comme celui de l’Asie centrale, important pour la Russie, avec un possible redéploiement de l’Otan après l’Afghanistan : c’est le texte de René Cagnat qui ouvre des pistes de réflexions. Comment doit-on penser la sécurité et la défense d’un espace qui va bien plus loin que les frontières de l’Union européenne ? Quel espace devons-nous protéger, contre qui et avec quels alliés ? Dans ce monde multicentrique, cette question doit appeler une réponse. Vous trouverez des pistes de réflexions sous la plume de l’ancien ministre Jean-Pierre Chevènement sur ces sujets. À noter aussi une analyse sur le cheminement stratégique de la Pologne en vue d’assurer sa sécurité avec l’Otan et l’UE faite par Roland Delawarde. Trois auteurs russes leur donnent la réplique avec leurs préoccupations spécifiques.