Malena Britz

Uncovering the Diverging Institutional Logics of EU Civil Protection

The development of European Union (EU) civil protection cooperation highlights important issues in the debate on the internal—external security nexus. It points to the increased transnationalization of threats usually assigned to the field of ‘internal’ security, but it also presents researchers with a puzzle: despite the relatively rapid development of civil protection cooperation, there is still substantial disagreement among the EU member states as to how it should continue to develop. Applying an analytical framework based on neo-institutional organization theory and the study of organizational ‘fields’, this article explores two questions: What is the institutional basis for member states’ diverging positions on the future direction of EU civil protection? and How may these positions affect the current development of EU civil protection? Our analysis draws upon empirical evidence from civil protection practice in Spain, Sweden and the EU, including official documents in the form of bills and laws, policy papers and elite interviews. We find that the basis for member states’ diverging positions on the future of EU civil protection is rooted in conflicting national institutional logics of civil protection. No logic has become dominant at the EU level, suggesting that as long as multiple institutional logics continue to coexist, disagreement on the future development of European level civil protection cooperation will persist.

The Role of Marketization in the Europeanization of Defense Industry Policy.

European integration has increased to encompass security-related policies. One such policy is defense industry policy, which traditionally has been a national concern rooted in defense and security policy. Efforts have been made since the 1990s to create a European defense industry market. However, there have been different ideas of how this goal should be achieved or which model for state—industry relations the market should rest on. Using Sweden to illustrate the development, this article argues that for the Europeanization of defense industry policy, marketization has played a vital role. Building on official documents and interviews, the article analyzes the efforts to create a European defense industry market, marketization of Swedish defense industry policy, and the increased interaction between Swedish and European defense industry policy processes. The analysis also shows domestic challenges that the processes of Europeanization and marketization have brought about.

European Participation in International Operations : The Role of Strategic Culture

Taking its departure in the concept of strategic culture, this book answers the question of why European countries decide either to participate or not in international military operations. This vol ...

Continuity or Change? British Strategic Culture and International Military Operations

This chapter studies British strategic culture and participation (in all four) of the operations studied in the book. It shows that British strategic culture maintain that the country has an important role in the world, which affects its willingness to participate in international operations. Traditionally the prime minister takes decisions on participation in international military operations, but increasingly parliament has come to play a role, and presently the practice is that parliament is consulted on such decisions. The role of the armed forces in the decision-making process is important in the sense that they are involved in the process from the beginning through double-hatting of civilians and military on positions in the Ministry of Defence.

Introduction: Strategic Culture and Participation in International Military Operations

This book uses the concept of strategic culture to analyse French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, and British participation in four different international military operations. We study participation and non-participation in Operation Enduring Freedom/ISAF in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, EU NAVFOR Atalanta outside Somalia, and Operation Unified Protector in Libya, including how decisions were justified. The first chapter of the book specifies our definition of strategic culture as the normative and regulative framework that enables certain decisions but at the same time restrains other decisions with regard to participation in international military operations. It also discusses how this conceptualisation of strategic culture is related to the previous literature of strategic culture and how we have operationalised the concept.

Conclusions: The Willing, the Cautious, and the Ambivalent

The book concludes by dividing the countries studied into three groups: the willing, the cautious, and the ambivalent, according to their willingness to participate in the operations studied. The chapter asserts that the normative frameworks of the strategic cultures explain decisions to participate or not in international military operations, and how such decisions are justified. The regulatory frameworks decide how quickly such decisions can be taken, which in turn might affect willingness to participate if the domestic process is outpaced by a rapid international process. The findings of the book are also used to analyse the first six months of air raids in Iraq after the Iraqi government asked the USA and its allies for help to fight the Islamic State/Daesh in the summer of 2014.