IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v49y2011i1p83-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power, Institutions and the CSDP: The Promise of Institutionalist Theory

Author

Listed:
  • ANAND MENON

Abstract

The common security and defence policy (CSDP) represents an institutionalized attempt on the part of European Union Member States to respond to the security challenges they confront. As such, it is perhaps self-evident that theoretical approaches that focus on the role of institutions in shaping social life should have something to say about its nature, role and impact. This article argues that not only can institutionalist approaches enhance our understanding of CSDP, but using it as a case study can illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of institutionalism. In particular, it can indicate the importance of combining insights into the importance of institutional structures in shaping politics and policy with the crucial role power plays in mitigating some institutional effects. This argument is pursued via consideration of the evolution and workings of CSDP.

Suggested Citation

  • Anand Menon, 2011. "Power, Institutions and the CSDP: The Promise of Institutionalist Theory," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 83-100, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:49:y:2011:i:1:p:83-100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02130.x
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hill, 1993. "The Capability‐Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe's International Role," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 305-328, September.
    2. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1999. "A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 267-306, April.
    3. McCalla, Robert B., 1996. "NATO's persistence after the cold war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 445-475, July.
    4. Hanna Ojanen, 2006. "The EU and Nato: Two Competing Models for a Common Defence Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 57-76, March.
    5. Garrett, Geoffrey, 1992. "International cooperation and institutional choice: the European Community's internal market," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 533-560, April.
    6. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    7. Zachary Selden, 2010. "Power is Always in Fashion: State-Centric Realism and the European Security and Defence Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 397-416, March.
    8. Grieco, Joseph M., 1988. "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 485-507, July.
    9. Wallander, Celeste A., 2000. "Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 705-735, October.
    10. Barnett, Michael N. & Finnemore, Martha, 1999. "The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 699-732, October.
    11. Kenneth W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal, 1998. "Why States Act through Formal International Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(1), pages 3-32, February.
    12. Hoffmann, Stanley, 1970. "International Organization and the International System," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 389-413, July.
    13. Anders Wivel, 2005. "The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 393-412, June.
    14. Zachary Selden, 2010. "Power is Always in Fashion: State‐Centric Realism and the European Security and Defence Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 397-416, March.
    15. Jervis, Robert, 1982. "Security regimes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 357-378, April.
    16. Gallarotti, Giulio M., 1991. "The limits of international organization: systematic failure in the management of international relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 183-220, April.
    17. Powell, Robert, 1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1303-1320, December.
    18. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    19. Lieberman, Robert C., 2002. "Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 697-712, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heidi Maurer & Nicholas Wright, 2021. "Still Governing in the Shadows? Member States and the Political and Security Committee in the Post‐Lisbon EU Foreign Policy Architecture," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 856-872, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2020. "Death of international organizations. The organizational ecology of intergovernmental organizations, 1815–2015," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 339-370, April.
    2. Robert E. Goodin & Werner Güth & Duncan Snidal, 2005. "Strategic Aspects of Hegemony," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-29, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    3. André Lecours, 2014. "The Question of Federalism in Nepal," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 609-632.
    4. Thijs Van de Graaf & Dries Lesage, 2009. "The International Energy Agency after 35 years: Reform needs and institutional adaptability," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 293-317, September.
    5. Mark A. Pollack, 2007. "The New Institutionalisms and European Integration," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0031, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    6. Ryan Federo & Angel Saz-Carranza, 2017. "Devising Strategic Plans to improve Organizational Performance of Intergovernmental Organizations," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(2), pages 202-212, May.
    7. Steffi Heinecke, 2016. "The Gradual Transformation of the Polish Public Science System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8391 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Colgan, Jeff D., 2014. "The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Limits of OPEC in the Global Oil Market," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 599-632, July.
    10. Bernhard Ebbinghaus, 2009. "Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform," Chapters, in: Lars Magnusson & Jan Ottosson (ed.), The Evolution of Path Dependence, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Minh Thị Hải Võ & Karl Löfgren, 2019. "An institutional analysis of the fiscal autonomy of public hospitals in Vietnam," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 90-107, January.
    12. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    13. Resnick, Danielle & Babu, Suresh Chandra & Haggblade, Steven & Hendriks, Sheryl & Mather, David, 2015. "Conceptualizing drivers of policy change in agriculture, nutrition, and food security: The kaleidoscope model:," IFPRI discussion papers 1414, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Hatani, Faith, 2016. "Institutional plasticity in public-private interactions: Why Japan’s port reform failed," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(6), pages 923-936.
    15. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Lampropoulou, Manto, 2021. "Public-sector reform: Lessons from the privatisation experiment in Greece," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    17. Jeffrey T. Checkel & Andrew Moravcsik, 2001. "A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies?," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(2), pages 219-249, June.
    18. Charles Boehmer & Timothy Nordstrom, 2008. "Intergovernmental Organization Memberships: Examining Political Community and the Attributes of International Organizations," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 282-309, November.
    19. Mohammed Nuruzzaman, 2008. "Liberal Institutionalism and International Cooperation after 11 September 2001," International Studies, , vol. 45(3), pages 193-213, July.
    20. Dyevre, Arthur & Lampach, Nicolas, 2018. "The origins of regional integration: Untangling the effect of trade on judicial cooperation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 122-133.
    21. Andrea Gerlak & Jonathan Lautze & Mark Giordano, 2011. "Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 179-199, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:49:y:2011:i:1:p:83-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.