Do non-alignment, geography and size matter? The motives and effects behind participation in EU security and defence missions – the cases of Finland, Sweden and Ireland.
(2010) STVM17 20101Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- This master’s thesis examines the motives of non-aligned, geographically peripheral and smaller European Union (EU) Member States (MS) Finland, Sweden and Ireland to participate in EU military crisis management operations. It also studies the effects that these MS have had in the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Theoretically this thesis is based on a typology that Alyson J.K. Bailes has created to explain states’ motives to send military troops to overseas missions since the end of the Cold War. The rapid development of CSDP has forced MS to adjust their own security and defence strategies. Pernille Rieker’s outlook on Europeanization is used in analysing the roles of the case states in the CSDP development.
... (More) - This master’s thesis examines the motives of non-aligned, geographically peripheral and smaller European Union (EU) Member States (MS) Finland, Sweden and Ireland to participate in EU military crisis management operations. It also studies the effects that these MS have had in the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Theoretically this thesis is based on a typology that Alyson J.K. Bailes has created to explain states’ motives to send military troops to overseas missions since the end of the Cold War. The rapid development of CSDP has forced MS to adjust their own security and defence strategies. Pernille Rieker’s outlook on Europeanization is used in analysing the roles of the case states in the CSDP development.
The data used consists of governmental and parliamentary documents. By looking at an EU military operation EUFOR Althea, where all three MS had a sizeable role to play, there are national but also shared motives for participating. Sweden and Finland have actively participated in the development of the CSDP. Ireland has had its own tools to guarantee its own interests. Non-alignment, geography or size has not limited their successful participation in the CSDP. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1608290
- author
- Timola, Anne LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- STVM17 20101
- year
- 2010
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- military crisis management, European Union, EU Common Security and Defence Policy, Operation Althea., strategy
- language
- English
- id
- 1608290
- date added to LUP
- 2010-06-30 16:23:48
- date last changed
- 2010-06-30 16:23:48
@misc{1608290,
abstract = {{This master’s thesis examines the motives of non-aligned, geographically peripheral and smaller European Union (EU) Member States (MS) Finland, Sweden and Ireland to participate in EU military crisis management operations. It also studies the effects that these MS have had in the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Theoretically this thesis is based on a typology that Alyson J.K. Bailes has created to explain states’ motives to send military troops to overseas missions since the end of the Cold War. The rapid development of CSDP has forced MS to adjust their own security and defence strategies. Pernille Rieker’s outlook on Europeanization is used in analysing the roles of the case states in the CSDP development.
The data used consists of governmental and parliamentary documents. By looking at an EU military operation EUFOR Althea, where all three MS had a sizeable role to play, there are national but also shared motives for participating. Sweden and Finland have actively participated in the development of the CSDP. Ireland has had its own tools to guarantee its own interests. Non-alignment, geography or size has not limited their successful participation in the CSDP.}},
author = {{Timola, Anne}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Do non-alignment, geography and size matter? The motives and effects behind participation in EU security and defence missions – the cases of Finland, Sweden and Ireland.}},
year = {{2010}},
}