SavedAdd your journal

Journals / PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs / 2012 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy

Rebecca R MOORE
Pages
55–74
Publication Date
2012-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In so doing, however, it moves the Alliance toward less differentiation between partners and fails to clarify the role of like-minded partners in preserving and extending the liberal security order that NATO’s initial partnerships were designed to enlarge

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept identifies cooperative security as one of “three essential core tasks” to be achieved in part “through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organizations around the globe”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To facilitate the construction of this broader network of partners, the Alliance adopted a new partnership policy in April 2011, designed to facilitate “more efficient and flexible” partnership arrangements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In so doing, however, it moves the Alliance toward less differentiation between partners and fails to clarify the role of like-minded partners in preserving and extending the liberal security order that NATO’s initial partnerships were designed to enlarge
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:NATO · strategic concept · partnership policy

Abstract

NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept identifies cooperative security as one of “three essential core tasks” to be achieved in part “through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organizations around the globe”. To facilitate the construction of this broader network of partners, the Alliance adopted a new partnership policy in April 2011, designed to facilitate “more efficient and flexible” partnership arrangements. The policy offers a number of new tools to foster the cooperative security efforts deemed so critical under the new strategic concept and permits potential and existing partners an opportunity to shape their own relationships with NATO. In so doing, however, it moves the Alliance toward less differentiation between partners and fails to clarify the role of like-minded partners in preserving and extending the liberal security order that NATO’s initial partnerships were designed to enlarge

🔖

Cite This Article

MOORE, R. R. (2012). Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 55–74. https://ajindex.com/articles/795807

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. 1 “Active Engagement, Modern Defence, Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, Lisbon, November 2010, at http://www.nato. int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf [last visited 12 January 2012]. 2 Ibid. 3 The Alliance has not yet agreed to extend invitations to either Georgia or Ukraine to join NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP). Europe’s continued dependence on Russia for energy resources and fears of provoking a hostile Russian reaction have prevented some Allies from supporting such a step. 4 Lord Robertson, “NATO: A Vision for 2012”,
  2. Speech at GMFUS Conference, Brussels, 3 October 2002. 5 “NATO Elevates Mediterranean Dialogue to a Genuine Partnership, Launches Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”, at http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/06-june/e0629d.htm [last visited 10 January 2012]. 6 See, for example, A. Elizabeth Jones, “Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Testimony before the subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia”, House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 29 October 2003 at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/25798. htm. [last visited 15 January 2006]; See also U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet, “Frequently Asked Questions about U.S. Policy in Central Asia”, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/15562.htm [last visited 15 January 2006]. 7 “Istanbul Summit Communique”, PR/CP (2004) 096, 28 June 2004 at http://www.nato/into/docu/ pr/2004/po4-096e.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]. 8 “Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB)”, Brussels, 7 June 2004 at http:// www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b040607e.htm [last visited 10 January 2012]. 9 IPAPS are drafted every two years rather than annually as is required under MAP. 10 See NATO, “Individual Partnership Action Plans”, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/ topics_49290.htm [last visited 10 January 2012]. 11 “First visit by Top Pakistani Officer to NATO”, NATO Update, 17 November 2006 at http://www.nato. int/docu/update/2006/11-november/e1117a.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]; Author telephone interviews with NATO International Staff members, August 2009. 12 Pakistan responded to the friendly fire incident by shutting down NATO’s supply routes to Afghanistan and removing the U.S. from an air base used to facilitate drone attacks. Anne Gearan, “Pakistan, U.S. Assume Less Cooperation in Future”, Ass