European security: The end of architecture and the new NATO

International Affairs

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 751-769

  Cornish, Paul ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040655762     PISSN: 00205850     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2624120     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. J. Solana, 'NATO in transition', Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 1: 1, 1996, p. 9.
2. P. Zelikow, 'The masque of institutions', Survival 38: 1, Spring 1996, p. 7.
3. See North Atlantic Council Communiqué, Oslo, 4 June 1992: 'stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area will increasingly be built on a framework of interlocking and mutually reinforcing institutions'. NATO Review 40: 3, June 1992, p. 30.
4. North Atlantic Council Communiqué, Berlin, 3 June 1996 ('Berlin communiqué'): NATO Review 44: 4, July 1996, pp. 30-35.
5. A. Menon, 'From independence to cooperation: France, NATO and European security', International Affairs, 71: 1, January 1995, p. 22.
6. The Economist, 19 Nov. 1094, p. 18.
7. S. Sloan, 'US perspectives on NATO's future', International Affairs, 71: 2, April 1995, p. 229.
8. 'NATO acquires a European identity', The Economist, 8 June 1996.
9. Quoted in 'Defence deal keeps all the parties happy', The Independent, 4 June 1996.
10. 'US agrees to give Europe more say in NATO operations', Financial Times, 4 June 1996.
11. See Menon, 'From independence to cooperation'.
12. M. Legge, 'The making of NATO's new strategy', NATO Review 39: 6, Dec. 1991, p. 11.
13. 'Europe's defence dance', Foreign Report, 7 March 1996.
14. 'French PM suggests independent EU army', Jane's Defence Weekly, 20 March 1996, p. 11.
15. France, Germany push greater EU security role', Defense News, 10 June 1996.
16. Private information.
17. London Declaration on a transformed North Atlantic Alliance, London, 5-6 July 1990.
18. Ibid., para. 14. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 4 April 1949 contains an explicit commitment to joint defence of NATO territory in Europe or North America: 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'
19. Ibid., para. 14. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 4 April 1949 contains an explicit commitment to joint defence of NATO territory in Europe or North America: 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'
20. Legge, 'The making of NATO's new strategy', p. 11.
21. London Declaration, para. 20.
22. The new force structure would consist of Main Defence Forces, Reaction Forces and Augmentation Forces.
23. The four functions were: to provide a stable security environment in Europe; to act as a torum for transatlantic discussion; to defend against aggression; to preserve the strategic balance in Europe. See NATO Press Communiqué M-1(91) 44, 7 June 1991.
24. The alliance's strategic concept, paras. 45-54.
25. J. R. Galvin, 'From immediate defence towards long-term stability', NATO Review 39: 6, Dec. 1991, p. 15.
26. V. Eide, 'The military dimension in the transformed alliance', NATO Review 40: 4, Aug. 1992, p. 23.
27. See NATO Review 44: 4, July 1996, pp. 30-35.
28. W. van Eekelen, The security agenda Jor 1996: background and proposals (Brussels: CEPS Paper no. 64, 1995), p. 28.
29. Press communiqué M-NAC(DM)-2(96)89.
30. M. Wörner, 'Shaping the alliance for the future', NATO Review 42: 1, Feb. 1994, p. 4.
31. This argument is developed in L. Martin and J. Roper, eds, Towards a common defence policy (Paris: WEU ISS, 1995), p. 2 and passim.
32. Report on progress in implementing the CFSP, January-December 1995 (European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, PE 216.309/fin., 30 May 1996), para. 21.
33. J. Paganon, 'European security, defence and integration: WEU 1954-1996' (unpublished paper, St Antony's College, Oxford, 21 June 1996).
34. J. Cutileiro, unpublished speech to Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 18 Jan. 1996.
35. J. Santer, 'The European Union's security and defence policy', NATO Review, 43: 6, Nov. 1995, p. 4.