Experimental differentiation as an innovative form of cooperation in the European Union: Evidence from the Nordic Battlegroup

Reference list

• Amadio Viceré, M. G., & Sus, M. (2023). Differentiated cooperation as the mode of governance in EU foreign policy: Emergence, modes and implications. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2168854
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, J. J. (2006). Armed and ready? The EU Battlegroup concept and the Nordic Battlegroup. SIEPS Report 2. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, C. (2005). Norway outside the European Union: Norway and European integration from 1994 to 2004. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arter, D. (1995). The EU referendum in Finland on 16 October 1994: A vote for the west, not for Maastricht. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(3), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1995.tb00539.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barcikowska, A. (2013). EU battlegroups – Ready to go? European Institute for Security Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Bátora, J., & Fossum, J. E. (2020). Towards a segmented European political order: The European Union’s post-crises conundrum. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Biscop, S. (Ed.). (2005). E Pluribus Unum?: Military integration in the European Union. Egmont Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Biscop, S. (2018). European defence: Give PESCO a chance. Survival, 60(3), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1470771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blockmans, S., & Crosson, D. (2021). PESCO: A force for positive integration in EU defence. European Foreign Affairs Review, 26(Special Issue), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.54648/EERR2021028
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, L. (2012). Germany, Poland and the common security and defence policy: Converging security and defence perspectives in an enlarged EU. Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• de Neve, J.-E. (2007). The European Onion? How differentiated integration is reshaping the EU. Journal of European Integration, 29(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330701502498
   Google Scholar
• De Witte, B. (2019). The law as tool and constraint of differentiated integration. EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2019/47. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/63604/RSCAS_2019_47.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Downs, W. M., & Riutta, S. (2005). Out with ‘rainbow government’ and in with ‘Iraqgate’: The Finnish general election of 2003. Government & Opposition, 40(3), 424–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00158.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (1999). Differentiated integration in Europe: The case of EEA country, Norway. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E. O. (2018). Political differentiation and the problem of dominance: Segmentation and hegemony. European Journal of Political Research, 57(4), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Council. (1999, December 10–11). European Council presidency conclusions. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European External Action Service. (2022). A European strategic compass for security and defence: For a European Union that protects its citizens, values and interests and contributes to international peace and security. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2006). The European security and defence Policy: From the Helsinki Headline Goal to the EU Battlegroups. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede030909noteesdp_/sede030909noteesdp_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Norway. (2010). Political platform as basis for the government’s work formed by the Labour Party, Socialists Left Party and Centre Party, signed in Soria Moria.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Sweden. (2006, October 6). Regeringsförklaringen Lästes Upp av Statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt inför Sveriges Riksdag. Government of Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Sweden. (2010, October 5). Statement of government policy presented by the prime minister, Mr Fredrik Reinfeldt, to the Swedish Riksdag. Government of Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Græger, N. (2005). Norway between NATO, the EU, and the US: A case study of post-cold war security and defence discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570500059605
   Google Scholar
• Gstöhl, S. (2002). Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in the process of integration. Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Gustavsson, J. (1998). The politics of foreign policy change: Explaining the Swedish reorientation on EC membership. Lund University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Håkansson, C. (2021). Finding its way in EU security and defence cooperation: A view from Sweden. European View, 20(1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858211004647
   Google Scholar
• Haugevik, K., & Sending, O. J. (2020). The Nordic balance revisited: Differentiation and the foreign policy repertoires of the Nordic states. Politics & Governance, 8(4), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingebritsen, C., & Larson, S. (1997). Interest and identity: Finland, Norway and European Union. Cooperation and Conflict, 32(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836797032002004
   Google Scholar
• Iso-Markku, T., Innola, I., & Tiilikainen, T. (2018). A stronger north? Nordic cooperation in foreign and security policy in a new security environment. Prime Minister of Finland’s Office. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160829/37-2018-A%20Stronger%20North.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, W., & Jones, C. (2008). The EU battle groups in Sweden and the Czech Republic: What national defense reforms tell us about European rapid reaction capabilities. European Security, 17(2-3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830802642587
   Google Scholar
• Jerneck, M. (1993). Sweden – The reluctant European? In T. Tiilikainen & I. Damgaard Peterson (Eds.), (pp. 23–42). Political Studies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kerttunen, M. (2005). Finland. In M. Kerttunen, T. Koivula, & T. Jeppsson (Eds.), EU battlegroups: Theory and development in the light of Finnish-Swedish cooperation (pp. 73–92). National Defence College – Department of Strategic and Defence Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Kerttunen, M. (2010). The EU Battlegroup – Its background and concept. Diskusson & Debatt, 1, 127–150.
   Google Scholar
• Kölliker, A. (2006). Flexibility and European unification: The logic of differentiated integration. Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, D. (2022). Promise unfulfilled? Managing differentiated integration in EU secondary law through enhanced cooperation. In B. Leruth, S. Gänzle, & J. Trondal (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of differentiation in the European Union (pp. 170–183). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kucera, T. (2019). What European army? Alliance, security community or postnational federation’. International Politics, 56(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0129-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riksdag (2013, June 9). Riksdagens protokoll 2013/14:121 Måndagen den 9 juni. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Leruth, B. (2014). Differentiated integration in the European Union: A comparative study of party and government preferences in Finland, Sweden and Norway [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/16175
   Google Scholar
• Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019). Differentiated integration and disintegration in the EU after Brexit: Risks versus opportunities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1383–1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of differentiation in the European Union. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2022). Integration and differentiation in the European Union: Theories and policies. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lindahl, R., & Naurin, D. (2005). Sweden: The twin faces of a Euro-outsider. Journal of European Integration, 27(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330400029983
   Google Scholar
• Lindmarker, I. (1991). How Sweden’s political parties view Europe and possible EC membership. Current Sweden, 382.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstrom, G. (2007). Enter the European Battlegroups. Institute for security studies of the European Union. Chaillot Paper 97. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/cp097.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Martill, B., & Gebhard, C. (2023). Combined Differentiation in European Defence: Tailoring Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) to Strategic and Political Complexity. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2155360
   Google Scholar
• Mouritzen, H. (1993). The two Musterknaben and the naughty boy: Sweden, Finland and Denmark in the process of European integration. Cooperation and Conflict, 28(4), 373–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836793028004003
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Council. (2019). Nordic Council strategy on societal security. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1362729/FULLTEXT02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Opitz, C., & Etzold, T. (2018). Seeking renewed relevance institutions of Nordic cooperation in the reform process. SWP Comment, 3. https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2018C03_opt_etz.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peen Rodt, A. (2014). The European Union and military conflict management: Defining, evaluating and achieving success. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pesu, M., Iso-Markku, T., & Jokela, J. (2020). Finnish foreign policy during EU membership: Unlicking the EU’s security potential. Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Raunio, T., & Tiilikainen, T. (2003). Finland in the European Union. Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y. (2016). No supply without demand: Explaining the absence of the EU battlegroups in Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic. European Security, 25(3), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2016.1205978
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y. (2017). EU battlegroups: High costs, no benefits. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1348568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y. (2018). EU battlegroups: From standby to standstill. In J. Karlsrud & Y. Reykers (Eds.), Multinational rapid response mechanisms: From institutional proliferation to institutional exploitation (pp. 41–56). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rieker, P. (2021a). Differentiated defence integration under French leadership. European Foreign Affairs Review, 26(Special Issue), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2021029
   Google Scholar
• Rieker, P. (2021b). Differentiated integration and Europe’s global role: A conceptual framework. European Foreign Affairs Review, 26(Special Issue), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2021023
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 169–184). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., & Winzen, T. (2014). Instrumental and constitutional differentiation in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., & Winzen, T. (2020). Ever Looser Union? Differentiated European integration. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sjursen, H. (2012). From fly in the ointment to accomplice: Norway in EU foreign and security policy. ARENA Working Paper 2/2012. ARENA Centre for European Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. E. (2016). Implementing the global strategy where it matters most: The EU’s credibility deficit and the European neighbourhood. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1240467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stie, A. E. (2020). Introducing the study of Nordic cooperation. Politics and Governance, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3726
   Google Scholar
• Stoltenberg, T. (2009, February 9). Nordic cooperation on foreign and security policy: Proposals presented to the extraordinary meeting of Nordic foreign ministers in Oslo. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/nordicreport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Storting. (2007). Redegjørelse av Forsvarsministeren om Status for Norsk Deltagelse i den Nordiske Innsatsstyrken. Møte Onsdag den 28. November 2007 kl. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Sundberg, J. (2008). Finland. European Journal of Political Research, 47(7-8), 969–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2008.00792.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundelius, B. (1994). Changing course: When neutral Sweden chose to join the European community. In W. Carlsnaes & S. Smith (Eds.), European foreign policy – The EC and changing perspectives in Europe (pp. 177–201). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson, P. (1994). The Danish yes to Maastricht and Edinburgh: The EC referendum of May 1993. Scandinavian Political Studies, 17(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.1994.tb00050.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Törnudd, K. (1996). Ties that bind to the recent past: Debating security policy in Finland within the context of membership of the European Union. Cooperation and Conflict, 31(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836796031001003
   Google Scholar
• Tunsjø, Ø. (2011). Geopolitical shifts, great power relations and Norway’s foreign policy. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winn, N. (2003). Towards a common European security and defence policy? The debate on NATO, the European army and transatlantic security. Geopolitics, 8(2), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/714001032
   Google Scholar