Bureaucratic policy and defense cooperation among the Baltic states

• Autorzy: Nikers Olevs , Tabuns Otto

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35467/sdq/145571

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The objectives of this paper are to (1) comparatively analyse defence strategies of the Baltic countries against the theory of institutionalism, focusing on factors that affect policy maintenance or change within defence cooperation and (2) assess the current state of defence cooperation in the Baltic countries. The study gives a theoretical overview, relating the theory of new institutionalism to the subject of debate over bureaucratic institutions, which also plays a role in the regional security politics of the Baltic countries. An empirical study compares the defence strategies of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. While few studies have investigated this subject before, that the conclusion reached by this investigation is that administrative bodies in the defence sector of the Baltic countries are affected by politically driven processes pertaining to the foreign affairs domain, which play a key role in matters related to cooperation and synchronisation of the defence and security of the Baltic States. The findings suggest that a more focused analysis of the role of institutions and bureaucratic policy in the policy making of the three Baltic countries needs to take place. The study concludes that (1) the current state of defence cooperation in the Baltic countries can be called “developing”; (2) the operation of defence establishments can be called “path dependent”, which is mainly influenced by “external” factors or pressures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

regional security; Baltic defence cooperation; bureaucratic policy; institutionalism

• Wydawca: Akademia Sztuki Wojennej
• Czasopismo: Security and Defence Quarterly
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 37, No. 1
• Strony: 41--54
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Nikers Olevs

• Doctoral programme, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema street 16, LV1007, Riga, Latvia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1732-8075

autor

Tabuns Otto

• Baltic Security Foundation, Sapieru str. 3B-81, LV1012, Riga, Latvia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0878-3527

Bibliografia

• 1. Allison, T. Graham. (1971) Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 67–97.Archer, C. (2014) ‘Setting the scene: Small states and international security’, in Archer, C., Wivel A., and Bailes, A. (eds.) “Small States and International Security. Europe and Beyond” Routledge, pp. 3–25 doi: 10.4324/9781315798042.
• 2. Dyčka, L., Rõkk T and Śliwa, Z. (2020, Nov.) ‘Defense strategies of the smaller NATO States – A comparative study’, Vojenské Rozhledy čz., 29(4), pp. 23–45. doi: 10.3849/2336-2995.29.2020.04.023-045.
• 3. Elbridge, C. A. and Brzezinski, I. (2021) ‘How NATO manages the “Bear” and the “Dragon”’, Orbis, 65(1), pp. 8–16. doi: 10.1016/2020.11.001.
• 4. Grant, G. (2019) ‘Defense and Deterrence In-Depth Analysis’, in Nikers, O. and Tabuns, O. (eds.) Baltic security strategy report. The Jamestown Foundation, pp. 18–48 Available at: https://jamestown.org/product/... (Accessed 15 June 2021).
• 5. Halperin, M. and Clapp, A. (2006) Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, p. 27.
• 6. Harper, C., Lawrence, T. and Sakkov, S. (2018) Air defense of the Baltic States, Tallinn: ICDS, pp. 15–25. Available at: https://icds.ee/air-defense-of... (Accessed: 21 December 2021).
• 7. Hubel, H. (2004) ‘The Baltic Sea sub-region after dual enlargement’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39(3), pp. 283–298. doi: 10.1177/0010836704045204.
• 8. Jančošekovà, V. (2017) ‘Regional cooperation in central and eastern Europe and its implications for the EU’, European View, 16(2), pp. 231–238. doi: 10.1007/s12290-017-0460-8.
• 9. Krasner, S. (1984) ‘Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics’, Comparative Politics, January, p. 225. doi: 10.2307/421608.
• 10. Kühn, U. (2020) ‘Deter and engage: Making the case for Harmel 2.0 as NATO’s new strategy’, New Perspectives, 23(1), pp. 127–157. doi: 10.1177/2336825X1502300106.
• 11. Loftus, S. (2021) ‘Democracy and transatlantic values in an age of great power competition’, Orbis, 65(2), pp. 342–353. doi:10.1016/2021.03.011.
• 12. Lucas, E., Hodges, B. and Schmiedl, K. (2021) Close to the wind: Too many cooks, not enough broth. Center of European Policy Analysis. Available at: https://cepa.org/baltic-sea-se... (Accessed: 21 December 2021).
• 13. Mälksoo, M. (2021) ‘A ritual approach to deterrence: I am, therefore I deter’, European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), pp. 53–78. doi: 10.1177/1354066120966039.
• 14. Milevski, L. (2020) ‘Sanctuary, honor, and war termination: Considerations for strategy in Baltic Defense’, Orbis, 64(1), pp. 150–160. doi:10.1016/2019.12.010.
• 15. Ministry of Defence, Estonia (2017) National security concept. Available at: https://kaitseministeerium. ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/article_files/national_security_concept_2017_0.pdf (Accessed: 21 December 2020).
• 16. Ministry of Defence, Latvia (2020) State defense concept. Available at: https://www.mod.gov.lv/sites/m... (Accessed: 21 December 2020).
• 17. Ministry of Defence, Lithuania (2016) Military strategy. Available at: https://kam.lt/en/defence_poli... (Accessed: 21 December 2020).
• 18. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Estonia (2014) Baltic defense cooperation. Available at: http://www.vm.ee (Accessed: 21 December 2020).
• 19. Nikers, O. and Tabuns, O. (2019a) Baltic interoperability report. The Jamestown Foundation. pp. 7–23. Available at: https://jamestown.org/product/... (Accessed: 15 June 2021).
• 20. Nikers, O. and Tabuns, O. (2019b) Baltic security strategy report. The Jamestown Foundation. pp. 1–64. Available at: https://jamestown.org/product/... (Accessed: 15 June 2021).
• 21. Peters, B.G. (2016) Contemporary approaches on public policy: Theories, controversies, perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-50494-4.
• 22. Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2011) Handbook of public administration. London: Sage, pp. 101–185. doi: 10.4135/9781848608214.
• 23. Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T. (2002) ‘Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science’, in Katznelson, I. and Milner, H.V. (eds.) Political science: State of the discipline. New York, NY: Norton, pp. 693–721.
• 24. Postimees (2018) Estonia’s largest military exercise Siil to partially take place in Latvia. Available at: https://news.postimees.ee/4441... (Accessed: 12 December 2021).
• 25. Roberts, C. and Geels, F. (2019) ‘Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140(Mar), pp. 221–240. doi: 10.1016/2018.11.019.
• 26. Romanovs, U. and Andžāns, M. (2017) ‘The trilateral military cooperation of the Baltic States in the “new normal security landscape,” security in the Baltic Sea region: Realities and prospects’, in Sprūds, A and Andžāns, M. (eds.) “The Rīga Conference Papers 2017”. Riga, Latvia: Latvian Institute of International Affairs. pp. 14–22. Available at: http://liia.lv/en/publications.... papers2017643 (Accessed: 21 December 2021).
• 27. Sraders, S. (2021) Small Baltic States and the Euro-Atlantic security community. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53763-0.
• 28. Szymański, P. (2017) The multi-speed Baltic States reinforcing the defence capabilities of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. OSW Studies, No. 68. Warsaw, Poland: Center for Eastern Studies (OSW). pp. 9218 Available at: https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/d... (Accessed: 12 December 2021).
• 29. Thoenig, Jean-Claude. (2003) ‘Institutional theories and public institutions: Traditions and appropriateness’, in Peters, G. and Pierre, J. (eds.) The handbook of public administration. London: Sage, pp. 127–148. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/p... (Accessed: 20 June 2021). doi: 10.4135/9781848608214.n11.
• 30. Thoenig, Jean-Claude. (2005) ‘Territorial administration and political control. Decentralization in France’, Public Administration, 83(3), pp. 685–708. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00470.x.
• 31. Vanaga, N. (2016) ‘Military cooperation of the Baltic States: In search of a common answer after the Ukrainian crisis’, Sargs.lv, May 5. pp. 28–40. Available at: https://www.sargs.lv/lv/viedok... (Accessed: 15 June 2021).
• 32. Veebel, V. (2020) ‘Strategic challenges in the Baltic Sea region: Russia, deterrence, and reassurance’, Defense & Security Analysis, 36(3), pp. 373–375. doi: 10.1080/14751798.2020.1790814.
• 33. Veebel, V. and Ploom, I. (2019) Are the Baltic States and NATO on the right path in deterring Russia in the Baltic? Defense & Security Analysis, 35(4), pp, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/14751798.2019.1675947.
• 34. Ventsel, A., Hansson, S. and Madisson, M. (2021) ‘Discourse of fear in strategic narratives: The case of Russia’s Zapad war games media’, War & Conflict, 14(1), pp. 21–39. doi: 10.1177/1750635219856552.
• 35. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1959) Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Uwagi

Błędna numeracja w bibliogr.