IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Debating humanitarian military interventions in the European public sphere


  • Cathleen Kantner


What kind of democracy might fit the developing Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) given the political developments and the evolution of public debate on security and defence issues over the last twenty years? Different model-designs for a more democratic European Union (EU) in general and a democratized Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in particular have been proposed. This paper contributes to answering this question by investigating whether and in which ways Europeans were included in a transnational European debate on humanitarian military interventions after the Cold War (1990-2005/2006). The paper analyses a full sample of 108,677 newspaper articles published in the leading conservative and liberal newspapers of six EU member states, and the US as a comparative case. It demonstrates that the ‘national’ arenas of political communication are thematically intertwined and allow ordinary citizens to make up their minds about common European issues in this highly controversial and normatively particularly sensitive realm. Transnational political communication is currently not satisfyingly fed into representative democratic institutions. However, ‘hermetic communicative borders’ between national publics are non-existent and are a poor excuse for a lack of political will to democratise the EU – one way or the other.

Suggested Citation

  • Cathleen Kantner, 2011. "Debating humanitarian military interventions in the European public sphere," RECON Online Working Papers Series 30, RECON.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:reconx:p0112

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44, pages 533-562, September.
    2. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(01), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Sebastian Dullien & Daniela Schwarzer, 2009. "Bringing Macroeconomics into the EU Budget Debate: Why and How?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 153-174, January.
    4. Pieter de Wilde, 2008. "Media Coverage and National Parliaments in EU Policy-Formulation. Debates on the EU Budget in the Netherlands 1992-2005," ARENA Working Papers 19, ARENA.
    5. Pieter de Wilde, 2008. "Media Coverage and National Parliaments in EU Policy-Formulation: Debates on the EU Budget in the Netherlands 1992-2005," RECON Online Working Papers Series 13, RECON.
    6. Pieter de Wilde, 2009. "Reasserting the Nation State: The Trajectory of Euroscepticism in the Netherlands 1992-2005," RECON Online Working Papers Series 1, RECON.
    7. Pollack, Mark A., 1997. "Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(01), pages 99-134, December.
    8. Pieter de Wilde, 2007. "Politicisation of European Integration: Bringing the Process into Focus," ARENA Working Papers 18, ARENA.
    9. Erik Oddvar Eriksen & John Erik Fossum, 2002. "Democracy through Strong Publics in the European Union?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 401-424, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    CFSP/ESDP; democracy; media; European public space; civil-military relations; supranationalism;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:erp:reconx:p0112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marit Eldholm). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.