Bandwagoning, Not Balancing: Why Europe Confounds Realism

Abstract

Although realist perspectives seem challenged to explain European choices and preferences, realism retains great utility with its stress on states and states' concern for their national interests. Traditional realist analysis of European security policy err, rather, by focusing on balancing and related concepts such as soft balancing and balancing for autonomy. These accounts are theoretically and empirically flawed. Whilst balancing perspectives shed some light on European security policy predispositions, bandwagoning better explains trans-Atlantic contemporary security cooperation and increases the explanatory power of realist theories. The case for European bandwagoning is illustrated here by the empirical experience of prominent European Union military initiatives and the French defence reforms in the post-Cold War period. The tendency to bandwagon shows that European attempts to increase capabilities are strengthening rather than weakening transatlantic ties. Contrary to dominant realist views, through bandwagoning NATO benefits from European security and defence policy, becoming more durable and stronger than traditional realism expects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Transatlantic Studies Association Conference, Dundee University, 11–14 July 2011. The authors would like to thank Emma Green, David Haglund, Mary Rose Kubal and the three CSP anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms. Andrea Locatelli also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Italian Ministry of Education, Research and University (PRIN 2008 – Grant 2008AJT9AC_001). The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

Michael Mastanduno, ‘Preserving the Unipolar Moment. Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Spring 1997), pp. 49–88.

Chris Bickerton, Bastien Irondelle, and Anan Menon, ‘Security Cooperation beyond the Nation-State: The EU's Common Security and Defence Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1 (January 2011), pp. 1–21.

Tom Dyson, Neoclassical Realism and Defence Reform in Post-Cold War Europe (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Sten Rynning, ‘Realism and the Common Security and Defence Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1 (January 2011), pp. 23–42; Adrian Hyde-Price, European Security in the 21st Century: The Challenge of Multi-polarity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007).

Filippo Andreatta, ‘The International Relations of the European Union’, in Christopher Hill and Steven Smith (eds), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 18–37.

Joseph Grieco, ‘The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and the Neo-Realist Research Programme’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1995), pp. 21–40; Joseph Grieco, ‘State Interests and Institutional Rule Trajectories. A Neorealist Interpretation of The Maastricht Treaty and European Economic and Monetary Union’, in Benjamin Frankel (ed.), Realism: Restatements and Renewal, special issue of Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring 1996), pp. 261–306.

The classical reference is Robert Keohane, After Hegemony (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984). See also Carsten Tams, ‘The Functions of a European Security and Defence Identity and Its Institutional Form’, in Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane, and Celeste A. Wallander (eds), Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 80–103.

Michael E. Smith, ‘Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Cooperation’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March 2004), pp. 95–136.

Ibid., p. 100.

Thomas Risse, ‘Social Contructivism and European Integration’, in Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds), European Integration Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), Ch. 7; Jolyon Howorth, ‘Discourse, Ideas, and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy’, West European Politics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (March 2004), pp. 211–34; Helene Sjursen, ‘Understanding the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Analytical Building Blocks’, in Michèle Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen (eds), Understanding the European Union's External Relations (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 35–53; Thomas Risse and Tanja A. Börzel, When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Changes, in ‘European Integration Online Papers (EioP)’, IV, 15, 2000.

Sten Rynning, ‘Strategic Culture and the Common Security and Defence Policy – A Classical Realist Assessment and Critique’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 32, No. 3 (December 2011), p. 536.

See among others Richard Little, The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); John Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5–56; John Ikenberry, ‘America's Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 5 (September/October 2002), pp. 44–54.

See among others William Wohlforth, ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 5–41; John M. Owen, ‘Transnational Liberalism and U.S. Primacy’, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Winter 2001/02), pp. 117–52; Thomas Mowle and David Sacko, The Unipolar World: An Unbalanced Future (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

Kenneth Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall 1993), pp. 52–53.

Christopher Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Spring 1993), pp. 5–53.

Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’ (note 13); Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion’ (note 14); Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era (New York: Knopf, 2002).

Kenneth Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), p. 28.

Barry Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy: Response to Unipolarity?’, Security Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April–June 2006), pp. 149–86; Christopher Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment', International Security, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Fall 2006), pp. 7–41; Seth Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited’ (note 17), p. 29.

Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy’ (note 17), p. 157.

Galia Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon: NATO under Unipolarity’, Security Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April–June 2006), pp. 271–309; for a theoretical discussion of these problems see Glenn Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997) and Marco Cesa, Allies Yet Rivals. International Politics in 18th Century Europe (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010).

Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon’ (note 20).

Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy’ (note 17), p. 159.

Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited’ (note 17), p. 29.

A hidden assumption of this argument is that autonomy is positively correlated to security. This is in line with Waltz's general theory, but it is not shared by all realists. For a seminal contribution on the trade-off between security and autonomy see James Morrow, ‘Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 4 (November 1991), pp. 904–33. For a recent discussion, see Davide Fiammenghi, ‘The Security Curve and the Structure of International Politics. A Neorealist Synthesis’, International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Spring 2011), pp. 126–54.

Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (note 17), p. 186.

Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy’ (note 17), p. 159.

Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited’ (note 17), p. 30.

Robert Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 7–45; and T.V. Paul, ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 46–71.

Stephen Walt, Taming American Power (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2005), p. 126.

Jolyon Howorth and Anan Menon, ‘Still Not Pushing Back: Why the European Union Is Not Balancing the United States’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 53, No. 5 (October 2009), pp. 727–44.

Paul, ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’ (note 28), p. 59.

Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’ (note 28); Paul, ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’ (note 28); Walt, Taming American Power (note 29).

Robert Art, ‘Europe Hedges Its Security Bets’, in T.V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, and Michael Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 179–238.

Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (note 17).

Franz Osvald, ‘Soft Balancing between Friends: Transforming Transatlantic Relations’, Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, Vol. 14, No. 2 (August 2006), pp. 145–60.

Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’ (note 28); Paul, ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’ (note 28); Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (note 17).

Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’ (note 28); Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (note 17); Art, ‘Europe Hedges Its Security Bets’ (note 33).

Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’ (note 13); Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ (note 16); and Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion’ (note 14).

Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’ (note 13), p. 50; Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion’ (note 14), p. 13.

Mette Eilstrup Sangiovanni, ‘Refuting Balance of Power Theory? A Comment on Wohlforth et al.'s “Testing Balance of Power in World History”’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 347–80.

Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy’ (note 17), p. 166.

James Morrow, ‘The Strategic Setting of Choices: Signaling, Commitment, and Negotiation in International Politics’, in David A. Lake and Robert Powell (eds), Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 77–114.

Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 214–16.

Imre Lakatos, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91–196; Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (eds), Progress in IR Theory. Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).

Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, ‘Hard Times for Soft Balancing’, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), p. 76.

On this point, see also Andrea Locatelli, ‘The Technology Gap in Transatlantic Relations: A Cause of Tension or a Tool of Cooperation?’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 133–54.

Brooks and Wohlforth, ‘Hard Times for Soft Balancing’ (note 45), p. 93.

Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’ (note 28); Paul, ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy’ (note 28).

Thomas L. Ilgen (ed.), Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future of Transatlantic Relations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).

Neoclassical realism is seen as an advance on Waltzian neo-realism as it allows space for domestic as well as systemic variables to play a role. Neoclassical realist scholars therefore address the importance of domestic variables in order to explain the process of foreign policy adaptation to systemic pressure. For an in-depth theoretical discussion of neoclassical realism, see Stephen E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey Taliaferro (eds), Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). For a recent neoclassical realist analysis of single states' foreign policies, see Lorenzo Cladi and Mark Webber, ‘Italian Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War period: A Neoclassical Realist Approach’, European Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (June 2011), pp. 205–19.

Stephen Walt, ‘The Ties that Fray: Why Europe and America Are Drifting Apart’, National Interest, No. 54 (Winter 1998/99), pp. 1–11.

Stanley Hoffmann, ‘Towards a Common European Foreign and Security Policy?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (June 2000), pp. 189–98; Arthur Cyr, After the Cold War (London: MacMillan, 2000).

Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (note 17).

For a debate between offensive and defensive realists, see Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future’ (note 11); Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ‘Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited’, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Winter 2000/01), pp. 128–61; Steven E. Lobell, ‘War Is Politics: Offensive Realism, Domestic Politics, and Security Strategies’, Security Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 2002/03), pp. 165–95.

Jolyon Howorth, Security and Defence Policy in the European Union (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), p. 102.

Ingo Peters, ‘ESDP as a Transatlantic Issue: Problems of Mutual Ambiguity’, International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No, 3 (November 2004), pp. 381–401; Michael H. Smith, ‘The USA and the EU’, in Michael Cox and Doug Stokes (eds), US Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 238–54.

Paul Cornish and Geoffrey Edwards, ‘Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The Beginnings of a European Strategic Culture’, International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 3 (July 2001), pp. 587–603.

‘[O]ur […] task is working together to develop a European Security and Defence Identity, or ESDI, within the Alliance (NATO), which the United States has strongly endorsed. […] Any initiative must avoid pre-empting Alliance decision-making by de-linking ESDI from NATO, avoid duplicating existing efforts, and avoid discrimination against non-EU members’. Quoted in Smith, ‘The USA and the EU’ (note 56), p. 248 (emphasis added).

Howorth, Security and Defence Policy (note 55).

Ibid.

European Council, Annex III of the Presidency Conclusions, 3–4 June 1999, Cologne, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/kolnen.htm (accessed 9 June 2011).

Robert Dover, Europeanization of British Defence Policy (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007).

European Council, Annex III of the Presidency Conclusions (note 61).

Howorth, Security and Defence Policy (note 55), p. 103.

Bastian Giegerich and William Wallace, ‘Not Such a Soft Power: The External Deployment of European Forces’, Survival, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer 2004), pp. 163–82.

Quoted in Hyde-Price, European Security in the 21st Century (note 3), p. 35.

European Union Council, Presidency Conclusions, 14–15 December 2001, Laeken, available at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/background/docs/laeken_concl_en.pdf (accessed 17 June 2011).

EU Council Secretariat, ‘Development of European Military Capabilities: The Force Catalogue 2006’, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/MilitaryCapabilitiesFC06backgroundNov06_en.pdf (accessed 17 June 2011).

P. Clark, M. Collis, and J. Wright, ‘Achieving the Helsinki Headline Goals: Summary of the EU–NGO CSFP Contact Group Meeting’, International Security Information Service, Brussels, CSFP Report no. 20, 2002.

Lars Wedin, ‘Northern Europe and the ESDP: The Case of Sweden’, in Clive Archer (ed.), New Security Issues in Northern Europe: The Nordic and Baltic States and the ESDP (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), pp. 38–56.

Peters, ‘ESDP as a Transatlantic Issue’ (note 56).

EU Council Secretariat, ‘Development of European Military Capabilities’ (note 68).

Article 28B, Treaty of Lisbon, Official Journal of the European Union C 306, Vol. 50 (17 December 2007), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:en:HTML (accessed 28 May 2012).

Trevor Salmon, ‘The European Security and Defence Policy: Built on Rocks or Sand?’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Autumn 2005), pp. 359–79.

Michael E. Smith, ‘Developing a “Comprehensive Approach” to International Security: Institutional Learning and the CSDP’, Paper presented at the 12th EUSA Biennal Conference, Boston, 3–5 May 2011.

EU Council Secretariat, ‘EU Battlegroups’, Fact sheet, 2007, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/Battlegroups_February_07-factsheet.pdf (accessed 14 May 2011).

Ron Hamelink, ‘The Battlegroups Concept: Giving the EU a Concrete “Military” Face’, EuroFuture (Winter 2005), pp. 8–11.

Andrea Locatelli, ‘L'Unione Europea e l'integrazione delle politiche di difesa’, in Andrea Locatelli and Serena Giusti (eds), L'Europa sicura. Le politiche di sicurezza dell'Unione Europea (Milano: Egea, 2008), pp. 71–86.

Gustav Lindstrom, Enter the EU Battlegroups, Chailliot Paper No. 97, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, 2007.

Wyn Rees, The US–EU Security Relationship: The Tensions between a European and a Global Agenda (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

Lindstrom, Enter the EU Battlegroups (note 79), p. 59.

Sven Biscop, ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation: Building Effective European Armed Forces’, Paper presented at the 12th EUSA Biennal Conference, Boston, MA, 3–5 May 2011.

Lindstrom, ‘Enter the EU Battlegroups’ (note 79).

Henrik Larsen, ‘Denmark and the ESDP Opt-out: A New Way of Doing Nothing?’, in Archer (ed.), New Security Issues in Northern Europe (note 70), pp. 78–94; Salmon, ‘The European Security and Defence Policy’ (note 74), p. 377.

Lindstrom, ‘Enter the EU Battlegroups’ (note 79).

Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited’ (note 17), pp. 34–6.

Colin Dueck, ‘Realism, Culture and Grand Strategy: Explaining America's Peculiar Path to World Power’, Security Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2 (April–June 2005), p. 199. Beyond the list we use here, Dueck also adds changes in the amount of foreign aid, diplomatic activism and resolve against adversaries. We obviously omit these indicators as they are not directly involved in the relationship with the US.

Robert Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), p. 33.

Perhaps it is worth recalling De Gaulle's historical decision to withdraw from NATO integrated military command in 1966. This choice was cancelled in 2009 by then President Sarkozy. For a discussion see Jolyon Howorth, ‘Prodigal Son or Trojan Horse: What's in it for France?’, European Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 11–28; Bastien Irondelle and Frédéric Mérand, ‘France's Return to NATO: The Death Knell for ESDP?’, European Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 29–43; David Haglund, ‘Happy Days Are Here Again? France's Reintegration into NATO and Its Impact on Relations with the USA’, European Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 123–42.

John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq (Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

Kerry Longhurst, Germany and the Use of Force: The Evolution of German Security Policy: 1990-2003 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004); Tom Dyson, The Politics of German Defence and Security: Policy Leadership and Military Reform in the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Berghahn Books, 2007).

Harry Eckstein, ‘Case Study and Theory in Political Science’, in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (eds), The Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7: Strategies of Inquiry (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 79–137.

Philip Gordon, A Certain Idea of France: French Security Policy and the Gaullist Legacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).

David Yost, ‘France and the Gulf War of 1990–1991: Political Military Lessons Learned’, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3 (September 1993), p. 355.

Jolyon Howorth, ‘France’, in Jolyon Howorth and Anan Menon (eds), The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 30–31.

Patrick Bratton, ‘France and the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 23, No. 2 (August 2002), p. 93.

Shaun Gregory, French Defence Policy into the 21st Century (London: MacMillan, 1999).

For a detailed description of the decision-making process leading to this choice, see Bastien Irondelle, ‘Civil-Military Relations and the End of Conscription in France’, Security Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2003), pp. 157–87.

Ministry of Defence (France), L'armée de terre française à l'aube du XXIe siècle (Paris: Sirpa Terre, 1999), pp. 12–15.

Karl Haltiner and Paul Klein, The European Post-Cold War Military Reforms and Their Impact on Civil-Military Relations, in Franz Kernic, Karl Haltiner, and Paul Klein (eds), The European Armed Forces in Transition (Frankfurt: Lang, 2005), pp. 9–30.

Adrian Treacher, ‘From Civilian Power to Military Actor: The EU's Resistable Transformation’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 49–66.

Bastien Irondelle, ‘Europeanization without the European Union? French Military Reforms 1991–1996’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 208–26.

Pernille Rieker, ‘From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security: Towards the Europeanization of French Foreign and Security Policy?’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 37, No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 509–28.

Gustav Lindstrom, EU-US Burden Sharing: Who Does What?, Chaillot Paper No. 82, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, 2005.

Andrea Carati and Marco Clementi, ‘La Nato e la distribuzione dei costi della forza’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, Vol. 40, No. 1 (April 2010), p. 42.

Noteworthy quotes are available in Posen, ‘European Union Security and Defence Policy’ (note 17), p. 166.

This is evident at the UN level. Data on vote cohesion between the US and France both at the General Assembly and the Security Council are available in Carla Monteleone, ‘Multilateral Security and the Transatlantic Coalition at the UN Security Council’, in Finn Laursen (ed.), The EU, Security and Transatlantic Relations (Brussels: PIE Peter Lang, forthcoming 2012).

Rieker, ‘From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security’ (note 103); Howorth, ‘Prodigal Son or Trojan Horse’ (note 89).

Jeremy Ghez and Stephen Larrabee, ‘France and NATO’, Survival, Vol. 51, No. 2 (April–May 2009), pp. 77–90.

Brooks and Wohlforth, ‘Hard Times for Soft Balancing’ (note 45); Howorth and Menon, ‘Still Not Pushing Back’ (note 30).

The most influential contribution is Randall Schweller, ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In’, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer 1994), pp. 72–107. Earlier treatments are available in Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979); Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987); Robert Jervis and Jack Snyder (eds), Dominoes and Bandwagons: Strategic Beliefs and Great Power Competition in the Eurasian Rimland (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Of course, the use of balancing here differs from previous literature in at least one respect: while it is commonly employed to explain alliance formation, here we are interested in alliance management.

Cesa, Allies Yet Rivals (note 20).

Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon’ (note 20). For the latter, see also Andrea Locatelli and Michele Testoni, ‘Intra-Allied Competition and Alliance Durability. The Case for Promoting a Division of Labour among NATO Allies’, European Security, Vol. 18, No. 3 (September 2009), pp. 345–62.

Tom Dyson, Neoclassical Realism (note 3), pp. 102–6. Close to this concept is Selden's definition of ‘soft bandwagoning’ (Zachary Selden, ‘Soft Bandwagoning and the Endurance of American Hegemony’, Paper presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2–5 September 2010).

Schweller, ‘Bandwagoning for Profit’ (note 111), pp. 101–3.

Joseph Grieco, ‘Realist Theory and the Study of World Politics’, in Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 163–201.