Foreign policy decision-making in operational overlap: the UK’s policing assistance in Afghanistan through the EU and NATO

References

• Aktipis, M. and Oliver, T., 2012. Europeanization and British foreign policy. In: R. Wong and C. Hill, eds. National and European foreign policies towards Europeanization. London: Routledge, 72–93.
   Google Scholar
• Alden, C. and Aran, A., 2017. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Allison, G. and Zelikow, P., 1999. Essence of decision: explaining the cuban missile crisis. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Auerswald, D.P. and Saideman, S.M., 2014. NATO in Afghanistan: fighting together, fighting alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bache, I. and Jordan, A., 2006. The Europeanization of British politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• BBC, 2009. Five British soldiers shot dead. BBC [Online]. Last updated: 04.11.2009. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm [Accessed 4 Jun 2020].
   Google Scholar
• BBC, 2010. David Cameron defends Afghan withdrawal deadline [Online]. Last updated: 20.11.2010. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11804205 [Accessed 15 Mar 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, A., Lepgold, J., and Unger, D., 1994. Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf War. International organization, 40 (1), 39–75.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerton, C.J., 2011. European Union foreign policy: from effectiveness to functionality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Biehl, H., Giegerich, B., and Jonas, A., eds., 2013. Strategic cultures in Europe: security and defence policies across the continent. Potsdam: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Biermann, R., 2008. Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: the Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting. Review of international organizations, 3 (2), 151–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biscop, S., 2019. Fighting for Europe: European strategic autonomy and the use of force no. 103. Brussels: Egmont Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Biscop, S. and Norheim-Martinsen, P.M., 2012. CSDP: the strategic perspective. In: X. Kurowska and F. Breuer, eds. Explaining the EU’s common security and defence policy: theory in action. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 63–85.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, T. 1999. Doctrine of the International Community. Global Policy Forum [Online]. Available from: https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26026.html [Accessed 2 Jun 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Brighi, E. and Hill, C., 2016. Implementation and behaviour. In: S. Smith, A. Hadfield, and T Dunne, eds. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 147–167.
   Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office, 2008. The national security strategy of the UK: security in an interdependent world. London: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office, 2010. Securing Britain in an age of uncertainty: the strategic defence and security review. London: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office. 2011. Government response to House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union Report on the EU’s Police Mission-Afghanistan.
   Google Scholar
• Caporoso, J.A., 1999. International relations theory and multilateralism: the search for foundations. International organization, 46 (3), 399–632.
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, L., Mawdsley, J., and Whitman, R., 2016. The national priorities of Germany, France and the UK: enabling or constraining a joined-up EU strategy? In: L. Chappell, J. Mawdsley, and P. Petrov, eds. The EU, strategy and security policy: regional and strategic challenges. London: Routledge, 169–185.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri, R. and Farrell, T., 2011. Campaign disconnect: operational progress and strategic obstacles in Afghanistan, 2009–2011. International affairs, 87 (2), 271–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chelotti, N., 2016. The formulation of EU foreign policy: socialization, negotiations and disaggregation of the state. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Coelmont, J., 2009. End-state Afghanistan No. 29. Brussels: Egmont-The Royal Institute for International Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, P., 2013. United Kingdom. In: H. Biehl, B. Giegerich, and A. Jonas, eds. Strategic cultures in Europe: security and defence policies across the continent. Cham: Springer, 371–386.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2003. A secure Europe in a better world: European security strategy. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2007. Council Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP of 30 May 2007 on establishment of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2016. EU-NATO Joint Declaration [Online]. Last updated: 8 July 2016. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21481/nato-eu-declaration-8-july-en-final.pdf [Accessed 26 Dec 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2018. Joint Declaration on EU-NATO Cooperation [Online]. Last updated: 10 July 2018. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36096/nato_eu_final_eng.pdf [Accessed 2 Jun 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, J.W., 2011. America’s Allies and War Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, 2011. Building stability overseas strategy. London: Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, T. 2014. The politics of German defence policy: policy leadership, Bundeswehr reform and European defence and security policy (PhD, London School of Economics).
   Google Scholar
• Fahron-Hussey, C., 2019. Military crisis management operations by NATO and the EU: the decision-making process. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Faleg, G., 2017. The EU’s common security and defence policy: learning communities in international organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T., 2017. Unwinnable: Briatin’s War in Afghanistan. London: Bobley Head.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, S., Cipoletti, T. J., and Tuninetti, A., 2011. A stress test for transatlantic security cooperation. In: Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI), Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), and Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), ed. EU-U.S. security strategies: comparative scenarios and recommendations. Washington: CSIS Press, 183–195.
   Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T., 2016. Constructivism and foreign policy. In: S. Smith, A. Hadfield, and T Dunne, eds. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–94.
   Google Scholar
• Friesendorf, C., 2013. Insurgency and civilian policing: organizational culture and German police assistance in Afghanistan. Contemporary security policy, 34 (2), 324–349.
   Google Scholar
• Galbreath, D. and Gebhard, C., 2010. Introduction. In: D. Galbreath and C. Gebhard, eds. Cooperation or conflict? Problematizing organizational overlap in Europe. London: Ashgate, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskarth, J., 2013. British foreign policy: crises, conflicts and future challenges. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gebhard, C. and Smith, S.J., 2015. The two faces of EU–NATO cooperation: counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast. Cooperation and conflict, 50 (1), 107–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gegout, C., 2012. Explaining European military interventions in Africa: a neoclassical realist perspective. In: A. Toje and B. Kunz, eds. Neoclassical realism in European politics: bringing power back in. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 138–160.
   Google Scholar
• Germond, B. and Smith, M.E., 2009. Re-thinking European security interests and the ESDP: explaining the EU's anti-piracy operation. Contemporary security policy, 30 (3), 573–593.
   Google Scholar
• Gilmore, J., 2014. The uncertain merger of values and interests in UK foreign policy. In: J. Gaskarth and R. Porter, eds. British foreign policy and the national interest: identity, strategy and security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 23–41.
   Google Scholar
• Gilpin, R., 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, R.H. and Penska, S.E., 2012. The European Union in global security: the politics of impact. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, S., 2010. The United Kingdom’s stabilisation model and Afghanistan: the impact on humanitarian actors. Disasters, 34 (3), 368–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Græger, N., 2014. Security: EU–NATO relations: informal cooperation as a common lifestyle. In: A. Orsini, ed. The European Union with(in) international organisations: commitment, consistency and effects across time. Surrey: Ashgate, 157–180.
   Google Scholar
• Græger, N., 2016. European security as practice: EU-NATO communities of practice in the making?. European security, 25 (4), 478–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Græger, N., 2017. Grasping the everyday and extraordinary in EU-NATO relations: the added value of practice approaches. European security, 26 (3), 340–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, E., 2009. The Europeanization of national foreign policy continuity and change in European crisis management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Heiduk, F., 2011. Policing Mars or Venus? Comparing European and US approaches to police assistance. European security, 20 (3), 363–383.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann, S.C., 2009. Overlapping institutions in the realm of international security: the case of NATO and ESDP. Perspectives on politics, 7 (1), 45–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann, S.C., 2013. European security in NATO’s shadow: party ideologies and institution building. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, 2007. Eighteenth report of session 2006–07. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, 2008a. Seventeenth report of session 2007-08. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, 2008b. Thirty-ninth report of session 2007–08. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, 2009. Thirty-third report of session 2008–09. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 2009. Global security: Afghanistan and Pakistan eighth report of session 2008-09. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 2011a. The UK's foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan: Fourth report of session 2010–11. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 2011b. The role of the FCO in UK government (seventh report of session 2010–12). London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 2011c. Piracy off the coast of Somalia (tenth report of session 2010–12). London: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, 2010. Who does UK national strategy? First report of Session 2010–11. London: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords European Union Committee, 2010. Minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the European Union Sub-committee C (foreign affairs, defence and development policy). London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords European Union Committee, 2011. 8th report of session 2010-11: the EU’s Afghan police mission. London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Howorth, J., 2003. ESDP and NATO: wedlock or deadlock? Cooperation and conflict, 38 (3), 235–254.
   Google Scholar
• Howorth, J., 2017. The European Union’s security and defence policy: the quest for purpose. In: C. Hill, M. Smith, and S. Vanhoonacker eds. International relations and the European Union, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 341–364.
   Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, G.J., 2008. Explaining crisis and change in transatlantic relations: an introduction. In: J. Andersen, G. J. Ikenberry, and T. Risse, eds. The end of the west? Crisis and change in the Atlantic order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Islam, S. and Gross, E., 2009. Afghanistan: Europe’s credibility test No. March. Brussels: European Policy Center.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, D. 2011. Written evidence submitted by Dr David Jenkins (Evidence Taken before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on Thursday 31 March 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, 2010. Memorandum from the Cabinet Office. London: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Juncos, A., 2018. Civilian CSDP missions: ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’. In: S. Blockmans and P. Koutrakos, eds. Research handbook on the EU's common foreign and security policy. Cheltenham: Elgar, 89–110.
   Google Scholar
• Kaarbo, J., 1998. Power politics in foreign policy. European journal of international relations, 4 (1), 67–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koops, J.A., 2017. Theorising inter-organisational relations: the “EU–NATO relationship” as a catalytic case study. European security, 26 (3), 315–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korski, D., 2009. Shaping Europe's Afghan surge. London: European Council on Foreign Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Larivé, M.H.A., 2012. From speeches to actions: EU involvement in the war in Afghanistan through the EUPOL Afghanistan mission. European security, 21 (2), 185–201.
   Google Scholar
• Legro, J.W. and Moravcsik, A., 1999. Is anybody still a realist? International security, 24 (2), 5–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P., 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International organization, 52 (4), 943–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, M. and Kaldor, M., eds., 2009. The European Union and human security: external interventions and missions. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelaer, A., 2013. The politico-military dynamics of European crisis response operations planning, friction, strategy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, S., 2017. The EU and NATO in Georgia: complementary and overlapping security strategies in a precarious environment. European security, 26 (3), 435–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McChrystal, S. 2009. COMISAF/CDR USFOR-A, ‘Partnering directive’, 29 August 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Mello, P.A. and Saideman, S.M., 2019. The politics of multinational military operations. Contemporary security policy, 40 (1), 30–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mérand, F., 2010. Pierre Bourdieu and the Birth of European defense. Security studies, 19 (2), 342–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlingen, M., 2012. EU security policy: what it is, how it works, why it matters. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, C., 2018. Parliamentary approval for military action (Briefing paper, CBP 7166, 8 May 2018). London: House of Commons Library.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A., 2008. The new liberalism. In: D. Snidal and C. Reus-Smit, eds. The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 234–254.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, T., 2007. Police-building in Afghanistan: a case study of civil security reform. International peacekeeping, 14 (1), 108–126.
   Google Scholar
• Norheim-Martinsen, P.M., 2011. EU strategic culture: when the means becomes the end. Contemporary security policy, 32 (3), 517–534.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 2009a. NATO allies agree on key ISAF issues. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-04905059-36F52D66/natolive/news_55579.htm.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 2009b. Summit declaration on Afghanistan (4. April 2009). Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 2010. Year in review. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
   Google Scholar
• Nováky, N., 2018. European Union military operations: a collective action perspective. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, C.M., 2011. Britain’s coalition government and EU defence cooperation: undermining British interests. International affairs, 87 (2), 419–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Shea, L., 2009. Improving the UK’s contribution to international policing. Policing: a journal of policy and practice, 4 (1), 38–46.
   Google Scholar
• Palm, T. and Crum, B. 2019. Military operations and the EU’s identity as an international security actor. European Security (Online).
   Google Scholar
• Peters, I., 2004. The OSCE, NATO and the EU within the “network of interlocking European security institutions”: hierarchization, flexibilization, marginalization. In: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, ed. OSCE yearbook 2003. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 381–402.
   Google Scholar
• Pohl, B., 2014. EU foreign policy and crisis management operations: power, purpose and domestic politics. Abingdon/Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Reichard, M., 2006. The EU–NATO relationship: a legal and political perspective. Hampshire: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Riddervold, M., 2014. New threats – different response: EU and NATO and Somali piracy. European security, 23 (4), 546–564.
   Google Scholar
• Rundell, P., 2015. Delivering and conceptualizing transition: experiences and lessons from the Helmand provincial reconstruction team, 2010–2012. In: R. Johnson and T. Clack, eds. At the end of military intervention: historical, theoretical, and applied approaches to transition, handover, and withdrawal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–303.
   Google Scholar
• Rynning, S., 2003. The European Union: towards a strategic culture? Security dialogue, 34 (4), 479–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schleich, C., 2014. NATO and EU in conflict regulation: interlocking institutions and division of labour. Journal of transatlantic studies, 12 (2), 182–205.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, B.C., 2016. The primacy of national security. In: S. Smith, A. Hadfield, and T. Dunne, eds. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 206–221.
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, A., 2015. The European security continuum and the EU as an international security provider. Global society, 29 (2), 156–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simón, L., 2013. Geopolitical change, grand strategy and European security: the EU-NATO Conundrum in perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, G., 2012. Exporting the UK police “brand”: the RUC-PSNI and the international agenda. Policing: a journal of policy and practice, 6 (1), 55–66.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, G., 2015. ‘Insider’/‘outsider’ policing: observations on the role of UK police (MDP) in Afghanistan and the application of ‘lessons learnt’. In: R. Johnson and T Clack, eds. At the end of military intervention: historical, theoretical, and applied approaches to transition, handover, and withdrawal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 414–436.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M.A., 2010. United Kingdom: how much continuity? How much change? In: E. J. Kirchner and J. Sperling, eds. National strategic cultures: patterns of global governance. London: Routledge, 85–102.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S.J., 2011. EU–NATO cooperation: a case of institutional fatigue? European security, 20 (2), 243–264.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S.J., 2015. European defence: the CSDP and the UK: two cases of catch-22. In: D. Fiott, ed. The common security and defence policy: national perspectives. Brussels: Egmont Institute, 23–26.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., 2018. Transatlantic security relations since the European security strategy: what role for the EU in its pursuit of strategic autonomy? Journal of European integration, 40 (5), 605–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S.J. and Gebhard, C., 2017. EU–NATO relations: running on the fumes of informed deconfliction. European security, 26 (3), 303–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2009. Remarks by the president in address to the nation on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, 1 December 2009. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• Toczek, D.M., 2006. Knowing the rules: planning considerations for NATO operations. Military review, 86 (1), 59–63.
   Google Scholar
• Toje, A., 2008. America, the EU and strategic culture: renegotiating the transatlantic bargain. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G., 1995. Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British journal of political science, 25 (3), 289–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2006. Afghanistan: counter narcotics law enforcement (update #5, January 2006). Kabul: UNODC Country Office for Afghanistan.
   Google Scholar
• Upadhay, K.D. and Pawelec, M., 2016. State-building and police reform in Afghanistan: EU and US engagement in comparative perspective. In: I. Peters, ed. The European Union’s foreign policy in comparative perspective. London: Routledge, 163–186.
   Google Scholar
• US Embassy London, 2009. UK to increase resources for Afghanistan. Available from: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LONDON2639_a.html.
   Google Scholar
• US Mission to the EU, 2007. U.S.-EU troika meeting generates wide-ranging discussion of drug issues. Available from: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BRUSSELS3530_a.html.
   Google Scholar
• US Mission to the EU, 2008. Afghanistan: EU officials support ashdown and worry about public support for Afghanistan mission. Available from: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08BRUSSELS54_a.html.
   Google Scholar
• US Mission to the EU, 2009a. Afghanistan: can the EU be a stronger partner in Afghanistan? Available from: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRUSSELS132_a.html.
   Google Scholar
• Whitman, R.G. and Tonra, B., 2017. Western Europe, Britain, Ireland, Benelux. In: A. Hadfield, I. Manners, and R. G. Whitman, eds. Foreign policies of EU member states continuity and Europeanisation. London: Routledge, 38–50.
   Google Scholar
• Willett, L., 2011. Pirates and power politics: naval presence and grand strategy in the Horn of Africa. The RUSI journal, 156 (6), 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M.J., 2011. Empire lite revisited: NATO, the comprehensive approach and state-building in Afghanistan. International peacekeeping, 18 (1), 64–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, N., 2019. The EU’s common foreign and security policy in Germany and the UK: co-operation, co-optation and competition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods. Thousands Oak: SAGE.
   Google Scholar