Structure, agency and transatlantic relations in the Trump era

References

• Alcaro, R., J. Peterson, and E. Greco, eds. 2016. The West and the Global Power Shift: Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Biscop, S. 2018. “European Defence: Give PESCO a Chance.” Survival 60 (3): 161–180. doi:10.1080/00396338.2018.1470771.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsnaes, W. 1992. “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 245–270. doi:10.2307/2600772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission. 2015. Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Strategy. Luxembourg: European Union. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Commission. (2017). “President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union Address 2017.” Brussels, September 13. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Dinan, D., N. Nugent, and W. Paterson. eds. 2017. The European Union in Crisis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, A. 1997. A New Era in US-EU Relations? The Clinton Administration and the New Transatlantic Agenda. Aldershot and Brookfield VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Garton Ash, T. (2017). “It’s the Kultur, Stupid.” New York Review of Books, 4–10. December 7–20.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, J. (2016). “The Obama Doctrine.” The Atlantic, April. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, R. 2017. A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Hay, C. 1995. “Structure and Agency.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by D. Marsh and G. Stoker. Basingstoke and New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt, G. 2013. The Lost Continent. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstadter, R. 2008. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, G. J. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, G. J. 2017. “The Plot against American Foreign Policy. Can the Liberal Order Survive?” Foreign Affairs 46 (2): 2–9. (May/June).
   Google Scholar
• Judis, J. B. 2016. The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics. New York: Columbia Global Reports.
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O., and J. S. Nye Jr. 2011. Power and Interdependence. 4th ed. Cambridge: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• King, S. D. 2017. Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History. New Haven CT and London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirchick, J. 2017. The End of Europe. New Haven CT and London: Yale University Press (Kindle edition).
   Google Scholar
• Krastev, I. 2017. After Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kupchan, C. 2012. No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. 1950. “World Politics and Personal Insecurity.” In A Study of Power, edited by H.D. Lasswell, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, E. 2017. The Retreat of Western Liberalism. London: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster, H. R., and G. D. Cohn (2017). “America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone.”, The Wall Street Journal, May 30. https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-first-doesnt-mean-america-alone-1496187426.
   Google Scholar
• Moghereni, F. 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Brussels: European External Action Service. https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A. 2003. “Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by C. Elman and M. F. Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro, P., and G. Autry. 2011. Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action. New York: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, J. 2015. Is The American Century Over?. Cambridge and Boston: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. 2005. Review of the Framework for Relations between the European Union and the United States: An Independent Study. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. 2016a. “All Roads Don’t Lead to Brussels (But Most Do): European Integration and Transatlantic Relations.” In The West and the Global Power Shift, edited by R. Alcaro, J. Peterson, and E. Greco. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. 2016b. “Choosing Europe or Choosing TTIP? The European Union and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.” European Foreign Affairs Review 21 (3): 383–402.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. 2017. “Juncker’s Political European Commission and an EU in Crisis.” Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (2): 349–367. doi:10.1111/jcms.12435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, J., and R. Steffenson. 2009. “Transatlantic Institutions: Can Partnership Be “Engineered’?”.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11 (1): 25–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2008.00355.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees, W. 2006. Transatlantic Counter-Terrorism Cooperation: The New Imperative. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rengger, N. 2007. “Realism, Tragedy and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International Political Thought.” In Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations, edited by M. C. Williams. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. 2017. Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sestanovich, S. (2017). “The Brilliant Incoherence of Trump’s Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic, May. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/the-brilliant-incoherence-of-trumps-foreign-policy/521430/.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S., A. Hadfield, and T. Dunne. 2012. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soros, G. 2015. Ukraine and Europe: What Should be Done? New York Review of Books, 8 October: 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Steffenson, R. 2005. Managing EU-US Relations: Actors, Institutions and the New Transatlantic Agenda. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Summers, L. (2017). “Business Needs to Show that There Is More to America than Trump.” Financial Times, June 4. https://www.ft.com/content/b4cb6d92-46b9-11e7-8d27-59b4dd6296b8
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• USTR. 2017. The President’s 2017 Trade Policy Agenda. Washington DC: US Trade Representative. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/AnnualReport/Chapter%20I%20-%20The%20President%27s%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–426. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wight, M. 1966. “Why Is There No International Theory?” In Diplomatic Investigations, edited by H. Butterfield and M. Wight. London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, T. J. 2017. All Measures Short of War: The Contest for the 21st Century and the Future of American Power. New Haven CT and London: Yale University Press (Kindle edition).
   Google Scholar