Since the birth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Europeans and the Americans have disagreed about who should share how much of the collective security burden. The input side of alliance burden sharing – that is, how many troops a member state contributes to the alliance – has been the privileged variable, both at the political as well as the academic levels. Other output variables (e.g. numbers of troops deployed to a particular mission) are highly contested. This article offers an analytically eclecticist framework for studying Atlantic burden sharing that allows combining variables on the input and output sides of the alliance burden sharing debate with those that consider it a social practice.
AldenChrisAranAmnon (2017) Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. London, New York: Routledge.
2.
BennettAndrewLepgoldJosephUngerDanny (1994) Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf war. International Organization, 48 (1), 39–75.
3.
BuchananJames M (2008) Politics and Scientific Inquiry: Retrospective on a Half-Century. In WittmanDAWeingastBR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 980–995.
CNN (2018) Trump opens NATO summit with blistering criticism of Germany, labels Allies ‘delinquent’.
7.
CornutJeremy (2015) Analytic Eclecticism in Practice: A method for combining international relations theories. International Studies Perspectives16(1): 50–66.
8.
DavidsonJason W (2011) America’s allies and war: Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
DesslerDavid (1989) What’s at Stake in the Agent - Structure debate. International Organization43(3): 441–473.
10.
FangSongyingRamsayKristopher W (2010) Outside options and burden sharing in nonbinding alliances. Political Research Quarterly63(1): 188–202.
11.
FarrellTheoTerriffTerry (2002) The sources of military change: culture, politics, technology. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
12.
FinnemoreMarthaSikkinkKatherine (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52(4): 887–917.
13.
FranckThomas M (1990) The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
FriedrichsJörg (2009) From Positivist Pretence to Pragmatist Awareness: Varieties of pragmatic methodology in IR scholarship. International Studies Review11(3): 645–648.
15.
FoucaultMichelMérandFrédéric (2012) The challenge of burden-sharing. International Journal67(2): 423–429.
16.
GeorgeAlexander L.BennettAndrew (2005) Case studies and theory development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
HabermasJürgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
18.
HansenLeneWaeverOle (2002) European Integration and National Identity: The challenge of the Nordic states. In WaeverOle (ed.) Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy: Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy Theory. London: Routledge, 20–49.
19.
HartleyKeithSandlerTodd (1999) NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and future. Journal of Peace Research36(6): 665–680.
20.
HurrellAndrew (2002) Norms and ethics in international relations. In: CarlsnaesWalterSimmons BethA.Risse-KappenThomas (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. SAGE, London, pp. 137–54.
21.
KammelArnoldZylaBenjamin (2018) Peacebuilding at Home: NATO and its ‘New’ Member States After Crimea. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2018.
22.
Katzenstein PeterJ. Eds. (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Columbia University Press, New York, NY
23.
KeckMargaretKatherineSikking (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
KitchenVeronica M (2010) The Globalization of NATO: Intervention, Security and Identity. London; New York: Routledge.
25.
KratochwilFriedrich V (1993) Norms Versus Numbers. Multilateralism and the rationalist and reflexivist approaches to institutions – a unilateral plea for communicative rationality. In RuggieJohn Gerard (ed.) Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press, 443–474.
26.
LakeDavid A (2013) Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 567–587.
27.
LeeJong-SupHeoUk (2002) The U.S.-South Korean Alliance, 1961–1988: Free-Riding or Bargaining?Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press
28.
LiskaGeorg (1968). Nations in Alliance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
MarchJames GOlsenJohann P (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.
30.
MarchJames GOlsenJohann P (2004) The Logic of Appropriateness (Vol. 9). Oslo: ARENA: Centre for European Studies.
31.
MassieJustinZylaBenjamin (2018) Alliance Value and Status Enhancement: Canada’s disproportionate military burden sharing in Afghanistan. Politics & Policy46(2): 320–344.
32.
MoravcsikAndrew (2003) Liberal International Relations Theory: A scientific assessment. In ElmanColinElmanMiriam Fendius (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 159–204.
33.
NeumannIver B (2002) Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies31(3): 627–651.
34.
OlsonMancurZeckhauserRichard (1966) An Economic Theory of Alliances. Review of Economics and Statistics48(3): 266–279.
SandlerToddHartleyKeith (1999) The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SchatzkiTheodoreCetinaKarin Knorrvon SavignyEike (eds) (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.
38.
ShepsleKenneth A (2008) Rational Choice Institutionalism. In BinderSARhodesRAWRockmanBA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
SilRudraKatzensteinPeter J (2010) Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 411–431.
40.
SilRudraKatzensteinPeter J (2011) De-centering, not discarding, the “Isms”: some friendly amend-ments. International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2), 481–485.
41.
SnyderGlenn (1984) The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics36: 461–496.
42.
The Guardian (2018) Angela Merkel Hits Back at Donald Trump at NATO Summit.
43.
ThiesWallace (2003) Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden-Shifting in NATO. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
WaltStephen M (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
WeldesJutta (1999) Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
47.
WeldesJutta (1998) Bureaucratic politics: A critical constructivist assessment’, Mershon International Studies Review, 1998, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 216–215.
48.
WendtAlexander (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It: The social construction of power politics. International Organization46: 391–425.
49.
ZylaBenjamin (2015) Sharing the Burden? NATO and its Second-Tier Powers. Toronto; New York: University of Toronto Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
