Between NATO and a hard place: defence spending debate in Germany and Czechia

References

• AfD, 2017. Programm für Deutschland. Wahlprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland für die Wahl zum Deutschen Bundestag am 24. September 2017. Berlin: AfD.
   Google Scholar
• Allers, R., 2016. The framework nation: can Germany lead on security? International affairs, 92 (5), 1167–1187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANO 2011, 2013. Resortní program [online]. Available from: https://www.anobudelip.cz/cs/o-nas/program/volby-2013/resortni-program/ [Accessed 22 Oct 2018].
   Google Scholar
• ANO 2011, 2017. Teď nebo nikdy. Ten jediný program, který potřebujete. ANO 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, C. and Nugent, N., 2002. Introduction: small states and the European Union. Current politics and economics of Europe, 11 (1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Aufrant, M., 1999. France and its allies: a comparative study of defence spending trends since 1985. Defence and peace economics, 10 (1), 79–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B90/Die Grünen, 2013. Zeit für den grünen Wandel. Berlin: Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen.
   Google Scholar
• B90/Die Grünen, 2017. Zukunft wird aus Mut gemacht. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2017. Berlin: Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen.
   Google Scholar
• Béraud-Sudreau, L. and Giegerich, B., 2018. NATO defence spending and European threat perceptions. Survival, 60 (4), 53–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besch, S., 2016. EU defence, Brexit and Trump. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. CER Policy Brief, December 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, M., 2018. As Trump hammers NATO allies on defense spending, military planners worry about his ‘2 percent’ obsession. Washington Post, 10 July.
   Google Scholar
• Biscop, S., 2017. How the EU can save NATO. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 83.
   Google Scholar
• Bossuyt, F., 2017. Between national and European foreign policy: the role of Latvia and Romania in the EU’s policy towards Central Asia. Southeast European and Black Sea studies, 17 (3), 441–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bove, V. and Cavatorta, E., 2012. From conscription to volunteers: budget shares in Nato defence spending. Defence and peace economics, 23 (3), 273–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brustlein, C., 2018. European strategic autonomy: balancing ambition and responsibility. Éditoriaux de l’Ifri, 16 November.
   Google Scholar
• Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C., eds., 2013. The member states of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bunse, S., 2009. Small states and EU governance. Leadership through the council presidency. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• de Carvalho, B. and Neumann, I.B., eds., 2014. Small states and status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• CDU/CSU, 2013. Gemeinsam erfolgreich für Deutschland. Regierungsprogramm 2013-2017. Berlin: CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle.
   Google Scholar
• CDU/CSU, 2017. Für ein Deutschland, in dem wir gut und gerne leben. Regierungsprogramm 2017-2021. Berlin: CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle.
   Google Scholar
• CDU, CSU, and SPD, 2013. Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD. Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• CDU, CSU, and SPD, 2018. Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa. Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland. Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD. Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Černochová, J., 2017. Novela z. o zajišťování obrany ČR (sněmovní tisk 17/0).
   Google Scholar
• Chazan, G. and Buck, T., 2019. Germany on course to miss defence spending target. Financial Times, 18 Mar.
   Google Scholar
• Coonen, S.J., 2006. The widening military capabilities gap between the United States and Europe: does it matter? Parameters, 36 (3), 67–84.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R., 2004. The breaking of nations: order and chaos in the twenty-first century. London: Atlantic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, J., Yi-Chong, X., and Weller, P., 2018. Climate change and the active participation of small states in international organisations. The round table, 107 (1), 103–105.
   Google Scholar
• Cowles, M.G., Caporaso, J., and Risse, T., eds., 2001. Transforming Europe. Europeanization and domestic change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crandall, M. and Varov, I., 2016. Developing status as a small state: Estonia’s foreign aid strategy. East European politics, 32 (4), 405–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ČSSD, 2013. Prosadíme dobře fungující stát. Volební program ČSSD. ČSSD.
   Google Scholar
• ČSSD, 2017. Dobrá země pro život. Volební program ČSSD pro volby 2017. ČSSD.
   Google Scholar
• CVVM, 2018. Postoj českých občanů k obraně ČR - leden 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Dickow, M. and Linnenkamp, H., 2016. Breite vor Tiefe. SWP-Aktuell, No. 38.
   Google Scholar
• Die Linke, 2013. 100% sozial. Wahlprogramm zur Bundestagswahl 2013. Berlin: Die Linke.
   Google Scholar
• Die Linke, 2017. Die Zukunft, für die wir kämpfen! Langfassung des Wahlprogramms zur Bundestagswahl 2017. Berlin: Die Linke.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS, 2016. Shared vision, common action: a stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Brussels: EEAS.
   Google Scholar
• European Council, 2003. A secure Europe in a better world. European security strategy. Brussels: European Council.
   Google Scholar
• FDP, 2013. Bürgerprogramm 2013. Damit Deutschland stark bleibt. Berlin: FDP-Bundesgeschäftsstelle.
   Google Scholar
• FDP, 2017. Denken wir neu. Das Programm der freien Demokraten zur Bundestagswahl 2017: ‘Schauen wir nicht länger zu. Berlin: FDP-Bundesgeschäftsstelle.
   Google Scholar
• Gadea, M.D., Pardos, E., and Pérez-Forniés, C., 2004. A long-run analysis of defence spending in the Nato countries (1960–99). Defence and peace economics, 15 (3), 231–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gates, R.M., 2011. The security and defense agenda (future of NATO). Speech by US Secretary of Defence, 10 June.
   Google Scholar
• George, J. and Sandler, T., 2018. Demand for military spending in NATO, 1968–2015: a spatial panel approach. European journal of political economy, 53, 222–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GMF, 2011. Transatlantic trends 2011. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
   Google Scholar
• GMF, 2012. Transatlantic trends 2012. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
   Google Scholar
• GMF, 2013. Transatlantic trends 2013. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
   Google Scholar
• Golub, J., 2012. How the European Union does not work: national bargaining success in the Council of Ministers. Journal of European public policy, 19 (9), 1294–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of the Czech Republic, 2014. Policy statement of the government of the Czech Republic. Prague: Government of the Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Government of the Czech Republic, 2018. Policy statement of the government of the Czech Republic. Prague: Government of the Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Graziano, P. and Vink, M.P., eds., 2007. Europeanization: new research agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, E., 2011. The Europeanization of national foreign policy: continuity and change in European crisis management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hallams, E. and Schreer, B., 2012. Towards a ‘post-American’ alliance? NATO burden-sharing after Libya. International affairs, 88 (2), 313–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugevik, K., 2017. Diplomacy through the back door: Norway and the bilateral route to EU decision-making. Global affairs, 3 (3), 277–291.
   Google Scholar
• Haugevik, K. and Rieker, P., 2017. Autonomy or integration? Small-state responses to a changing European security landscape. Global affairs, 3 (3), 211–221.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes-Renshaw, F. and Wallace, H., 2006. The council of ministers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Heisbourg, F., 2016. Brexit and European security. Survival, 58 (3), 13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hey, J.A.K., 2003. Refining our understanding of small state foreign policy. In: J.A.K. Hey, ed. Small states in world politics: explaining foreign policy behavior. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 185–195.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S. and Høyland, B., 2011. The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann, S.C., 2011. Why institutional overlap matters: CSDP in the European security architecture. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 49 (1), 101–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde-Price, A., 2000. Germany and European order: Enlarging NATO and the EU. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Irondelle, B., 2003. Europeanization without the European Union? French military reforms 1991–96. Journal of European public policy, 10 (2), 208–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, J., 2018. Is European NATO really free-riding? Patterns of material and non-material burden-sharing after the cold war. European security, 27 (4), 490–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, A.D., 2006. The transatlantic defence R&d gap: causes, consequences and controversies. Defence and peace economics, 17 (3), 223–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassab, H.S., 2018. Grand strategies of weak states and great powers. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• KDU-ČSL, 2013. Dáme zemi do pořádku. Volební program KDU-ČSL 2013-2017. KDU-ČSL.
   Google Scholar
• KDU-ČSL, 2017. Zodpovědně pro společný domov. Volební program KDU-ČSL pro sněmovní volby v roce 2017. KDU-ČSL.
   Google Scholar
• Kolín, V., 2018. Stálá strukturovaná spolupráce (PESCO): nový pilíř v budování evropské obrany. Vojenské rozhledy, 27 (4), 20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Kollias, C., 2008. A preliminary investigation of the burden sharing aspects of a European Union common defence policy. Defence and peace economics, 19 (4), 253–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krásný, A. and Socha, O., 2007. Bojová uskupení AČR ve prospěch Evropské unie. Vojenské rozhledy, 16 (3), 43–51.
   Google Scholar
• von Krause, U., 2019. Das Zwei-Prozent-Ziel der NATO und die Bundeswehr. Zur aktuellen Debatte um die deutschen Verteidigungsausgaben. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kufčák, J., 2015. The V4 countries and the impacts of the austerity cuts on their defence spending and armed forces. Obrana a strategie (defence and strategy), 14 (2), 35–48.
   Google Scholar
• Kufčák, J., 2016. NATO’s state of play: a view from Prague before the Brussels summit. AMO Policy Paper, No. 36.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, H., 2005. Analysing the foreign policy of small states in the EU: the case of Denmark. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Liberti, F., 2011. Defence spending in Europe: can we do better without spending more? Notre Europe Policy Paper, No. 46.
   Google Scholar
• Lunn, S. and Williams, N., 2017. NATO defence spending: the irrationality of 2%.
   Google Scholar
• Maass, M., 2016. Small enough to fail: the structural irrelevance of the small state as cause of its elimination and proliferation since Westphalia. Cambridge review of international affairs, 29 (4), 1303–1323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Major, C., 2015. Time to scrap NATO’s 2 percent pledge? Strategic Europe Blog, 28 April.
   Google Scholar
• Major, C. and Mölling, C., 2014. The framework nations concept. SWP Comments, No. 52.
   Google Scholar
• Mawdsley, J., 2004. The arming of the European Union: explaining the armaments dimension of European security and defence policy. Perspectives, 12 (1), 7–21.
   Google Scholar
• Meerts, P., 1997. Negotiating in the European Union: comparing perceptions of EU negotiators in small member states. Group decision and negotiation, 6 (5), 463–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon, A., 2011. European defence policy from Lisbon to Libya. Survival, 53 (3), 75–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic, 2011. The white paper on defence. Prague: Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Miskimmon, A., 2007. Germany and the common foreign and security policy of the European Union. Between Europeanisation and national adaptation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mölling, C., 2014. NATO’s two percent illusion. SWP Comments, No. 2014/C 36.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A., 1993. Preferences and power in the European community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 31 (4), 473–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moumoutzis, K., 2011. Still fashionable yet useless? Addressing problems with research on the Europeanization of foreign policy. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 49 (3), 607–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NATO, 1991. The alliance’s new strategic concept. Rome: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 1999. The alliance’s strategic concept approved by the heads of state and government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C. Washington, DC: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2010. Active engagement, modern defence: strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic treaty organization. Lisbon: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2011. Financial and economic data relating to NATO defence. Press Release No. PR/CP(2011)027.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2014. Wales summit declaration. Newport: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2016. Warsaw summit communiqué. Warsaw: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2018a. Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2011-2018). Press Release No. PR/CP(2018)091.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2018b. Brussels summit declaration. Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• ODS, 2013. Volební program. Volím pravici. Praha: ODS.
   Google Scholar
• ODS, 2017. Silný program pro silné Česko. ODS: Praha.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J.P., 2002. The many faces of Europeanization. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 40 (5), 921–952.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, A., 2017. European defence: not so much spending more, but spending better. Elcano blog, 14 March.
   Google Scholar
• Palosaari, T., 2011. The art of adaptation. A study on the Europeanization of Finland’s foreign and security policy. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Panke, D., 2010. Small states in the European Union: coping with structural disadvantages. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Panke, D., 2012. Dwarfs in international negotiations: how small states make their voices heard. Cambridge review of international affairs, 25 (3), 313–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pannier, A. and Schmitt, O., 2014. Institutionalised cooperation and policy convergence in European defence: lessons from the relations between France, Germany and the UK. European security, 23 (3), 270–289.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces, 2018. Information from the parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces: annual report 2017 (59th report). Berlin, No. 19/700.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, S., 1996. Defence spending and unemployment rates: an empirical analysis for the OECD. Journal of economic studies, 23 (2), 44–54.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, T., 1998. Germany, France and the integration of Europe: a realist interpretation. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Pernica, B., 2011. Rozpočtová politika české vlády ve věcech vnitřní a vnější bezpečnosti po roce 1998. Vojenské rozhledy, 20 (3), 66–75.
   Google Scholar
• Piráti, 2017. Černé na bílém. Volební program pro volby 2017 do poslanecké sněmovny. Piráti.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, B., 2006. European Union security and defense policy: response to unipolarity? Security studies, 15 (2), 149–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raimundo, A., 2013. The Europeanisation of foreign policy: an assessment of the EU impact on Portugal’s post-colonial relations in sub-Saharan Africa. European integration online papers, 17 (1), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Rickli, J.-M., 2008. European small states’ military policies after the cold war: from territorial to niche strategies. Cambridge review of international affairs, 21 (3), 307–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringsmose, J. and Rynning, S., 2017. Now for the hard part: NATO’s strategic adaptation to Russia. Survival, 59 (3), 129–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, T., 2000. “Let’s argue!”: communicative action in world politics. International organization, 54 (1), 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, P., 2017. Why two per cent on defence is too much. Economic affairs, 37 (2), 295–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandler, T. and Shimizu, H., 2014. NATO burden sharing 1999-2010: an altered alliance. Foreign policy analysis, 10 (1), 43–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarvaš, Š., 2000. The Nato enlargement debate in the media and civil-military relations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. European security, 9 (1), 113–126.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, B., 2003. The European Union and armaments: getting a bigger bang for the euro. Paris: EU ISS.
   Google Scholar
• Schütz, T., 2016. Die sicherheitspolitische Logik kleiner Zahlen. SWP-Aktuell, No. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Sjursen, H., 2011. Not so intergovernmental after all? On democracy and integration in European foreign and security policy. Journal of European public policy, 18 (8), 1078–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smed, U.T. and Wivel, A., 2017. Vulnerability without capabilities? Small state strategy and the international counter-piracy agenda. European security, 26 (1), 79–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M., 2004a. Toward a theory of EU foreign policy-making: multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe’s common foreign and security policy. Journal of European public policy, 11 (4), 740–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M.E., 2004b. Institutionalization, policy adaptation and European foreign policy cooperation. European journal of international relations, 10 (1), 95–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smlouva koaličních stran o zajištění obrany České republiky, 2014. Available from: http://www.mocr.army.cz/assets/informacni-servis/zpravodajstvi/smlouva-koalicnich-stran.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, G.H., 1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• SPD, 2013. Das wir entscheidet. Das Regierungsprogramm 2013-2017. Berlin: SPD-Parteivorstand.
   Google Scholar
• SPD, 2016. Česká republika – náš bezpečný domov, naše úspěšná budoucnost.
   Google Scholar
• SPD, 2017. Zeit für mehr Gerechtigkeit. Unser Regierungsprogramm für Deutschland. Berlin: SPD-Parteivorstand.
   Google Scholar
• Sperling, J., 2004. Capabilities traps and gaps: symptom or cause of a troubled transatlantic relationship? Contemporary security policy, 25 (3), 452–478.
   Google Scholar
• STAN, 2017. Program STAN 2017. Chceme vrátit stát zodpovědným občanům. STAN.
   Google Scholar
• Stetter, S., 2004. Cross-pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies. Journal of European public policy, 11 (4), 720–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallberg, J., 2008. Bargaining power in the European council. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 46 (3), 685–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, R., 2011. Resolving controversy in European Union: legislative decision-making before and after enlargement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thorhallsson, B. and Wivel, A., 2006. Small states in the European Union: what do we know and what would we like to know? Cambridge review of international affairs, 19 (4), 651–668.
   Google Scholar
• Tonra, B., 2013. Europeanisation and EU foreign policy: a genealogy and survey. 8th Pan European conference on international on international relations, Warsaw.
   Google Scholar
• TOP 09, 2013. Víme, kam jdeme. TOP 09.
   Google Scholar
• TOP 09, 2017. Volební program. TOP 09.
   Google Scholar
• Torreblanca, J.I., 2001. Ideas, preferences and institutions: explaining the Europeanization of Spanish foreign policy. ARENA Working Papers, No. WP 01/26.
   Google Scholar
• Vandecasteele, B., Bossuyt, F., and Orbie, J., 2013. Unpacking the influence of the council presidency on European Union external policies: the polish council presidency and the eastern partnership. European integration online papers, 17 (Special Issue 1), 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Vigeland Rottem, S., 2007. The ambivalent ally: Norway in the new NATO. Contemporary security policy, 28 (3), 619–637.
   Google Scholar
• Vital, D., 1967. The inequality of states. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voeten, E., 2001. Outside options and the logic of security council action. American political science review, 95 (4), 845–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walt, S.M., 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, T., 2013. Fighting wars or controlling crowds? The case of the Czech military forces and the possible blurring of police and military functions. Armed forces & society, 39 (3), 450–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, T., 2017. Promoting national priorities in EU foreign policy: the Czech Republic’s foreign policy in the EU. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, T., 2018. Foreign, security and defence policy: Europeanized at the bottom, neglected at the top. In: A. Lorenz and H. Formánková, eds. Das politische System Tschechiens. Wiesbaden: Springer, 153–175.
   Google Scholar
• Wivel, A., Bailes, A.J.K., and Archer, C., 2014. Setting the scene. Small states and international security. In: C. Archer, A.J.K. Bailes, and A. Wivel, eds. Small states and international security: Europe and beyond. Abingdon: Routledge, 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlforth, W.C., et al., 2018. Moral authority and status in international relations: good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of international studies, 44 (3), 526–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, R.Y., 2006. The Europeanization of French foreign policy: France and the EU in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Zapfe, M., 2017. Deterrence from the ground up: understanding NATO’s enhanced forward presence. Survival, 59 (3), 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar