Скачать 116.83 Kb.
Huntington, Samuel 1991. The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Huth, Paul K. Allee, Todd L. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press.
Jervis, Robert 1978. Cooperation under Security Dilemma. World Politics. Vol.30 no. 2, 167-214.
Jervis, Robert 1997. System effects. Complexity in Social and Political Life. Princeton University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1795. Perpetual Peace – A Philosophical Sketch. ONLINE. Available: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm
Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed). 1996. The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. Routledge.
Keohane, Robert O. Nye, Joseph S. 1977. Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.
Larsen, Henrik 2000. Danish CFSP Policy in the Post-Cold War Period. Continuity or Change? Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 35(1): 37-63.
Larsen, Henrik 2002. The EU: A Global Military Actor? Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 37(3): 283-302.
Lucarelli, Sonia. Peace and Democracy: Rediscovered Link The EU, NATO and the European System of Liberal-Democratic Security Communities. ONLINE. Available: http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/00-02/Lucarelli's.pdf
Lynn-Jones, Sean M. 2001. Does Offense-Defense Theory Have a Future. Depot- légal- Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec, 2001.
Miller, Benjamin 2000. Explaining Variations in Regional Peace. Three Strategies for Peace-making. Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 35(2): 155-192.
Mölder, Holger 2006. NATO’s Role in the Post-Modern European Security Environment Cooperative Security and the experience of the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Security and Defence Review vol .8, 2006. pp. 7-33.
Mölder, Holger 1998. The Security Dilemma in the Baltic Sea Region and Its Impact on the Regional Security and Defense Cooperation (Thesis). US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Posen, Barry R. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict”. Survival 35. (1):27-47.
Roe, Paul 2001. Actors Responsibility in Tight, Regular or Loose Security Dilemmas. Security Dialogue 32 (1): 103-16.
Rye Olsen, Gorm. Pillegaard, Jess 2005. The Costs of Non-Europe? Denmark and the Common Security and Defence Policy. European Security, Vol. 14, No. 3 : 339-360.
Shaw, Martin 2001. The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations. Review of International Studies, 27: 627-647.
Van Ham, Peter 2001. Security and Culture, or, Why NATO Won’t Last. Security Dialogue, Vol. 32(4): 393-406.
Väyrynen, Raimo 2000. Stable Peace Through Security Communities? Steps towards Theory Building. ONLINE. http://kroc.nd.edu/ocpapers/abs_18_3.shtml
Wendt, Alexander 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wilhelmsen, Julie 2002. Russian-Western security communities. ONLINE. Available: http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00021/Wilhelmsen-R-2002-04_21120a.pdf
Wivel, Anders. Theory and Prospects for Northern Europe’s Small States. Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 35(3): 331-340.
Zakaria, Fareed 2003. The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. W.W.Norton&Company.
Öberg, Jan, ed. 1992. Nordic Security in 1990s. Options in the Changing Europe. Pinters Publishers.
1 Alexander Wendt distinguishes three cultures that have influenced world politics – Hobbesian war, Lockean rivalry and Kantian security communities (Wendt 1999). Hobbesian war and Lockean rivalry overwhelmingly characterize the modern society. The ideal type for building security regimes for the post-modern system of states should be a Kantian security community.
2 Firstly, Richard van Wegenen introduced the concept of security communities in the early 1950s (Bellamy 2004, 6). However, first Karl Deutsch notably promoted the concept and later Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett have revived the concept foremost.
3 My definition to liberal democracy in post-modern society is – this is a social order which possesses values like free elections, free market economy, institutionalisation, international law, civil control over armed forces, individual and civil liberties, division of powers, tolerance against other cultures and principles of human security. In addition, liberal democratic security community highly values human security even more than it values state security (see also Zakaria 2003, Dahl 1989, Held 1995).
4 With the exception of some areas in the former Soviet Union, especially in Caucasus but there is problem with shared liberal democratic values.
5 I have examined the current European security architechture in my recent article NATO’s Role in the Post-Modern European Security Environment Cooperative Security and the experience of the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Security and Defence Review vol .8, 2006. pp. 7-33. http://www.bdcol.ee/fileadmin/docs/bsdr/1-NATO,%20European%20Security%20and%20the%20Baltic%20Sea%20Region-Holger%20Molder.pdf
6 Institutionalisating the concept of security communities and adapting security communities as value-based entities, we must be aware that there may exist different kind of security communities. For example hegemonic security communities based on non-democratic identities and values (such as the Warsaw Pact was) (Mölder 2006, 10). Security community itself does not be necessarily liberal democratic. Therefore I refer to the term “pluralistic security communities” discussing liberal democratic security communities.
7 complex interdependence can be described by multiple channels connecting societies, absence of hierarchy among issues and absence of use of military force against each other (Keohane, Nye 1977)
8 Deutsch characteristics for amalgamated security community – similar values (political ideologies but also economic and religious values); the formation of a common sense of us; similar lifestyles; group of leading actors (so to avoid that the logic of the balance of power prevail; high economic growth; positive expectations with respect to the advantages of integration; intensive transactions and communication; widening of the lieding elites; stable links among the elites of different states; high geographical mobility of the population (Deutsch, Karl et al. 1957, Political community and the North atlantic Area. p.6 ), all these condions to greater or lesser extent are represented in the European Union.
9 In 1998, the UK-France summit in St.Malo made a significant progress regarding the European Security and Defence Policy.
10 This is a minor security dilemma and could be easily resolved by Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in 2007, and Turkey’s movement towards EU membership. Norway, although rejected EU membership twice, has become more favorable for EU membership now.
|Draft: Please do not cite without permission. In particular, the empirical information remains in development and should not be referenced without explicit contact with the author in advance||Discussion draft. Please do not cite without permission|
|Work in progress. Draft version. Please do not quote||The closing date for comments is 16 November 1998 regional manager contact details|
|The Law Commission welcomes your comments on this paper||T h e h o n e y n e t p r o j e c t® | kye paper draft|
|Please provide your thoughts regarding this draft Enterprise spice process Assessment Model. Please use the attached commenting template, and return your comments to W||Draft Paper Commissioned for Conference Please Do Not Circulate|
|Draft of a working paper for education at brown university||11-19-07 Science Advisory Board (sab) Hypoxia Panel Draft Advisory Report Do Not Cite or Quote|