Soft contributions are hard commitments: NATO and Canada’s global security agenda

References

• Acharya, A., 2004. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58 (2), 239–275. doi: 10.1017/S0020818304582024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A., 2009. Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. New York: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, E., 2008. The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post—cold war transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14 (2), 195–230. doi: 10.1177/1354066108089241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asmus, R.D. et al., 1993. Building a new NATO. Foreign Affairs, 72 (4), 28. doi: 10.2307/20045713
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremmer, I., 2017. The only 5 countries that meet NATO’s defense spending requirements [online]. TIME. Available from: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/.
   Google Scholar
• Egnell, R., 2016. Gender perspectives and military effectiveness: implementing UNSCR 1325 and the national action plan on women, peace and security [online]. Inclusive Security. Available from: https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/publication/gender-perspectives-and-military-effectiveness/.
   Google Scholar
• Ettinger, A. and Rice, J., 2016. Hell is other people’s schedules: Canada’s limited-term military commitments, 2001–2015. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 71 (3), 371–392. doi: 10.1177/0020702016662797
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C.S., 2011. Hard power and soft power: the utility of military force as an instrument of policy in the 21st century. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College.
   Google Scholar
• Haglund, D.G., 1997. The NATO of its dreams? Canada and the cooperative security alliance. International Journal, 52 (3), 464–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilliker, J., Halloran, M., and Donaghy, G., 2017. Canada’s department of external affairs, volume III: innovation and adaptation, 1968–1984. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, K., 2010. The Canadian provincial reconstruction team: the arm of development in Kandahar province. American Review of Canadian Studies, 40 (2), 276–291. doi: 10.1080/02722011003734761
   Google Scholar
• Hurd, I., 2007. Breaking and making norms: American revisionism and crises of legitimacy. International Politics, 44 (2/3), 194–213. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800184
   Google Scholar
• Jockel, J.T. and Sokolsky, J.J., 2009. Canada and NATO: keeping Ottawa in, expenses down, criticism out … and the country secure. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 64 (2), 315–336. doi: 10.1177/002070200906400202
   Google Scholar
• Kitchen, V.M., 2009. Argument and identity change in the atlantic security community. Security Dialogue, 40 (1), 95–114. doi: 10.1177/0967010608100849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchen, V.M., 2010a. NATO’s out-of-area norm from suez to Afghanistan. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 8 (2), 105–117. doi: 10.1080/14794011003760269
   Google Scholar
• Kitchen, V.M., 2010b. The globalization of NATO: intervention, security and identity. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelaer, A., 2016. US leadership and NATO: revisiting the principles of NATO burden-sharing. Parameters, 46 (1), 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Nye Jr., J.S., 2002. The paradox of American power: why the world’s only superpower can’t go it alone. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saideman, S.M. and Auerswald, D.P., 2012. Comparing caveats: understanding the sources of national restrictions upon NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly, 56 (1), 67–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00700.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saideman, S.M. and Auerswald, D.P., 2014. NATO in Afghanistan: fighting together, fighting alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saideman, S.M. and Ayres, W.R., 2007. Pie crust promises and the sources of foreign policy: the limited impact of accession and the priority of domestic constituencies. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3 (3), 189–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2007.00047.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szoldra, P., 2017. Here’s who is paying the agreed-upon share to NATO – and who isn’t [online]. Business Insider. Available from: http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2.
   Google Scholar
• von Hlatky, S., 2013. American allies in times of war: the great asymmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walt, S.M., 1997. Why alliances endure or collapse. Survival, 39 (1), 156–179. doi: 10.1080/00396339708442901
   Google Scholar
• Zapolskis, M., 2012. 1999 and 2010 NATO strategic concepts: a comparative analysis. Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 10 (1), 35–56. doi: 10.2478/v10243-012-0012-5
   Google Scholar
• Zyla, B., 2009. NATO and post-cold war burden-sharing: Canada “the larggard?”. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 64 (2), 337–359. doi: 10.1177/002070200906400203
   Google Scholar
• Zyla, B., 2013. Explaining Canada’s practices of burden-sharing in the international security assistance force (ISAF) through its norm of “external responsibility”. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 68 (2), 289–304. doi: 10.1177/0020702013493756
   Google Scholar
• Zyla, B., 2015. Sharing the burden? NATO and Its second-tier powers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zyla, B., 2016. Who is keeping the peace and who is free-riding? NATO middle powers and burden sharing, 1995–2001. International Politics, 53 (3), 303–323. doi: 10.1057/ip.2016.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar