This article explores the domestic formulation of UK European defence policy 1997–2000 through the intergovernmental meetings at Pörtschach and Saint Malo which set in train the development and codification of a common European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in 2000, through a Liberal Intergovernmentalist (LI) framework. This research leads to five conclusions: first, that the Saint Malo initiative was a tactical shift of government policies rather than core preferences; second, that the prime minister centralised European defence policy-making within the core executive; third, that the prime minister was crucial to the development of the initiative; fourth, that the presentation of the initiative was made on lowest common denominator grounds; and, lastly, that the ‘successive limited comparisons' framework provides an effective corrective to LI's domestic policy formulation hypotheses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderM.GardenT. (2001) ‘The arithmetic of defence policy’, International Affairs, 77:3, 509–529.
2.
BailesA. (1996) ‘European defence and security: The role of NATO, WEU, and EU’, Security Dialogue, 27:1, 55–64.
3.
BlairT. (1995) 1945 Anniversary Lecture to the Fabian Society.
4.
BuddenP. (2002) ‘Observations on the Single European Act and “launch of Europe”: A less “intergovernmental” reading of the 1985 Intergovernmental Conference’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9:1, 76–97.
5.
ClarkD. (1997) Labour's Defence and Security Policy (London: UK Defence Forum).
6.
CowleyP.QuayleS. (2002) ‘The Conservatives running on the spot’, in GeddesA.TongeJ., Labour's Second Landslide—The British General Election 2001 (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
7.
CroftS.DormanA.ReesW.UttleyM. (2001) Britain and Defence 1945–2000, A Policy Re-evaluation (London: Pearson/Longman).
8.
DenverD. (2003) Elections and Voters in Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
9.
DormanA. (2001) ‘Reconciling Britain to Europe in the next Millennium: The Evolution of British Defense Policy in the Post-Cold War Era’, Defense Analysis, 17:2, 187–202.
10.
Duncan-SmithI. (2001) Minutes of Evidence Taken Before The Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee C) (London: The Stationery Office), 3–4.
11.
ForsterA.BlairA. (2002) The Making of Britain's European Foreign Policy (London: Longman Press).
12.
FreedmanL. (1999) The Politics of British Defence 1979–1998 (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
13.
FreedmanL. (2001) ‘Chapter 14—Defence’, in SeldonA. (ed), The Blair Effect (London: Little, Brown and Company), 289–305.
14.
GardenT. (1989) The Technology Trap (London: Brasseys).
15.
HartleyK. (2000) Evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, Sub-Committee C— The Common European Security and Defence Policy, 2 March (London: The Stationery Office), 38.
16.
HatfieldR. (2000) ‘The consequences of Saint Malo’, Lecture given to the Paris Institut Français des Relations Internationales.
17.
HennessyP. (2001) The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders since 1945 (London: Penguin Press).
18.
HoggS.HillJ. (1995) Too Close to Call (London: Little, Brown and Company).
19.
HogwoodB.GunnL. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
20.
House of Lords (2000) Select Committee on the European Union, Session 1999–2000, 15th Report, ‘The Common European Policy on Security and Defence’ (London: The Stationery Office).
21.
HowarthJ. (2002) European Integration and Defence: The Ultimate Challenge? (Paris: Institute for Security Studies), 43.
22.
HunterR. (2002) After Helsinki: Getting the NATO-EU Relationship Right (New York: RAND).
23.
Labour Party (1996) Road to the Manifesto: A Fresh Start for Britain—Labour's Strategy for Britain in the Modern World (London: Labour Party).
24.
Labour Party (1997) Election Manifesto (London: Labour Party).
25.
LiddleR.MandelsonP. (1996) The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? (London: Faber & Faber).
26.
LindblomC. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19:1, 76–88.
27.
Lindley-FrenchJ. (2002) Terms of Engagement. The Paradox of American Power and the Trans-Atlantic Dilemma post-11th September (Paris: Chaillot Paper 52).
28.
McInnesC. (1998) ‘Labour's Strategic Defence Review’, International Affairs, 74:4, 823–848.
29.
MenonA. (2000) House of Lords Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee C) (London: The Stationery Office).
30.
Ministry of Defence Performance Review (2000) Cm 5000 (London: Ministry of Defence).
31.
Ministry of Defence (2003) The Government's Expenditure Plans 2002–3 to 2003–4 (London: The Stationery Office).
32.
MoravcsikA. (1993) ‘Preferences and power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:4, 473–524.
33.
MoravcsikA. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (London: Routledge/University College London Press).
34.
OlsenJ. (2000) ‘Garbage can, new institutionalism and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review, 95:1, 191–198.
35.
PortilloM. (1996) ‘A British view’, in The Framework of United Kingdom Defence Policy (London: The Stationery Office).
36.
RichardsonJ. (1996) European Union: Power and Policy Making (London: Routledge).
37.
RuttenM. (2001) From Saint Malo to Nice. European Defence: Core Documents (Paris: Institute for Security Studies).
38.
SandlerT.HartleyK. (1995) The Economics of Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
39.
ScharpfF. (1998) ‘The choice for Europe: Selecting cases and testing hypotheses’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6:1, 164–168.
40.
SeldonA. (2001) The Blair Effect—The Blair Government 1997–2001 (London: Little, Brown and Company).
41.
SilvestriS. (1999) ‘Atlantic and European defence after Kosovo’, The International Spectator, XXXIV:3, 11–20.
42.
TaylorT. (1998) ‘Smart procurement and partnerships with industry’, The Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, 143:2, 41.
43.
WincottD. (1995) ‘Institutional interaction and European integration: Towards an everyday critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33:4, 597–609.
