In the spring issue of WeltTrends, Gunther Hellmann (Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe- Universität Frankfurt a. M.) sparked a debate on Germany’s foreign policy. He argued that Germany’s international behaviour is dominated by a Realpolitik policy generally referred to as "normalization". For Hellmann this transformation indicates "the deepest crisis of German foreign policy" ever. Hellmann proposes a rehabilitation of the tradition of the Bonner Republik and an active Idealpolitik.<br><br> This summer issue of WeltTrends features eleven articles written in response to Hellmann by International Relations scholars. The debate focuses on analytical as well as normative aspects of current German foreign policy. The authors discuss the context of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy, the international system and the United Nations, historical aspects of German foreign policy and the German foreign policy discourse. While some contributors share Hellmann's idealist position, most challenge his plea from a more realist perspective. In the upcoming fall issue, this debate will be continued with contributions by German foreign policy makers. A final reply by Hellmann will complete the debate in the winter issue of WeltTrends.<br> Contributions by: Franz Ansprenger, Stephan Böckenförde, Wilfried von Bredow, Sabine Busse, Edwina S. Campbell, Hartmut Elsenhans, Hans J. Gießmann, Werner Link, Carlo Masala, Hanns W. Maull, and Siegfried Schwarz.

In the spring issue of WeltTrends, Gunther Hellmann (Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe- Universität Frankfurt a. M.) sparked a debate on Germany's foreign policy. He argued that Germany’s international behaviour is dominated by a Realpolitik policy generally referred to as "normalization". For Hellmann this transformation indicates "the deepest crisis of German foreign policy" ever. Hellmann proposes a rehabilitation of the tradition of the Bonner Republik and an active Idealpolitik.<br><br> This summer issue of WeltTrends features eleven articles written in response to Hellmann by International Relations scholars. The debate focuses on analytical as well as normative aspects of current German foreign policy. The authors discuss the context of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy, the international system and the United Nations, historical aspects of German foreign policy and the German foreign policy discourse. While some contributors share Hellmann's idealist position, most challenge his plea from a more realist perspective. In the upcoming fall issue, this debate will be continued with contributions by German foreign policy makers. A final reply by Hellmann will complete the debate in the winter issue of WeltTrends.<br> Contributions by: Franz Ansprenger, Stephan Böckenförde, Wilfried von Bredow, Sabine Busse, Edwina S. Campbell, Hartmut Elsenhans, Hans J. Gießmann, Werner Link, Carlo Masala, Hanns W. Maull, and Siegfried Schwarz.

21 Mitgliedstaaten der EU sind heute gleichzeitig auch Mitglieder der NATO. Das geografische und politische Europa ist, bis auf wenige Ausnahmen, von Staaten besetzt, die zumindest einer dieser Organisationen angehören. Die verteidigungspolitische Organisation NATO trifft auf das politische System EU mit wachsendem sicherheitspolitischem Anspruch. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden verschiedene Aspekte der Kooperation zwischen diesen beiden Organisationen näher beleuchtet.

Die EU-Staaten haben sich lange Zeit in die Rolle der „Vasallen“ und des „Brückenkopfs“ (Brzezinski 1999) gefügt, solange sie sich davon mehr Vor- als Nachteile versprechen konnten. Mit der Ausformung der Europäischen Union zu einem immer kompakteren wirtschaftlichen und finanzpolitischen Machtzentrum wächst auch das Bedürfnis nach einer kohärenteren und durchsetzungsfähigeren regionalen und globalen Interessenwahrnehmung in den internationalen Institutionen, gegenüber anderen Großmächten und regionalen Zusammenschlüssen sowie in gewaltsamen Konflikten, die die Interessen der EU-Staaten tangieren. Dieser Trend wird durch den unilateralen Kurs der Vereinigten Staaten zusätzlich verstärkt, der sich bereits unter der Präsidentschaft Clintons ausformte und unter der Bush-Administration eine bislang nicht gekannte Zuspitzung erfahren hat. Mit der Ablehnung des Kyoto-Protokolls und des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, mit der Aufkündigung des ABM-Vertrages, dem Infragestellen des Teststoppabkommens und der Rehabilitierung des Krieges als Mittel der Politik haben die Vereinigten Staaten grundlegende Interessen, Ziele und Standards der EU-Staaten negiert und mithin ihre Gegenwehr herausgefordert. / The author argues that the „Grand Strategy“ of the Bush Administration is not only challenging the international position and interests of the EU and its member states but also the European political and societal identity. In order to cope with this challenge, he suggests to elaborate a coherent and mobilising model for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He proposes cooperative encouragement of democracy in the world through the democratisation of international relations and support of democratic regimes. The EU has to democratise its own institutions in order to preserve its international credibility. The author criticises that the European Convent has not done enough to define such a model. The „European Security Strategy“ can only be the beginning of a process of defining the strategic identity and interests of the European Union.

After experiencing World War ¢¹and ¢º, the European countries recognized that to prevent war on Europe was of necessary. They would like to inspire economic development by economic integration, and furthermore, to push Europe back to the key actor of world politics through political integration. From ¡§European Common Market¡¨, ¡§European Community¡¨ to ¡§European Union¡¨, the European countries has gone through many complex negotiations. Among the regimes in European Union, ¡§Common Foreign and Security Policy¡¨ works through ¡§Intergovernmental Cooperation¡¨, which is of much higher political meaning. It symbolizes the operation of integration theory has strode from economic to political matters. The operations of CFSP have two important contributions to Europe. First of all, it contributed to the reconciliation of European nations. Second, it demonstrates peace can be achieved through legal and institutional negations without threatening the existing political authorities. Both China and Taiwan can take lessons in the CFSP¡¦s negotiation process, especially in the aspects of how to leave aside disputes and put aside minor differences so as to seek common ground. President Chen Shui-Bian gave a talk on 31 December 2000 which indicated that the Cross-strait relation could learn from EU¡¦s integration experience and jointly seek for new framework of political integration. It could start from economic and cultural integration, build confidence step by step, and look for new framework for political integration. This kind of opinion conforms to international development experience. What norms of EU¡¦s experience should the Cross-strait refer to is the main topic of this research. How do EU¡¦s institutions make compromise between ¡§national interest¡¨ and ¡§EU¡¦s development¡¨ is another concerning point of the research.

Hovedopgave. / Format: PDF. Bibl.

German foreign policy is in the midst of a far-reaching transformation. Contrary to disciplinary expectations, this process is neither properly captured by descriptions in the liberal tradition („Europeanisation“, „Civilian Power“) nor by Realist expectations that Germany is doomed to „remilitarise“ and/or „renationalise“. However, the key term of foreign policy discourse, „normalisation“, is an unmistakable code, signalling a rediscovery of traditional Realpolitik practices which fit Germany’s current environment. The paper argues that rather than merely playing the role of an obedient disciple of Realpolitik socialisers, Germany ought to rehabilitate the foreign policy tradition of the Bonn Republic in support of an active Idealpolitik transformation of its environment. The article serves as a starting point for a debate on German foreign policy in the upcoming issues of WeltTrends.

Problems of coherence and effectiveness have been repeatedly mentioned by external observers as affecting European Union (EU) external action. A theory-based explanation of this state of affairs is, however, lacking in the literature. This thesis aims to address this lacuna by focusing on a particular aspect of EU external action, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and by analysing CFSP actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) throughout the period 1991-2006. Its primary goal is to determine which factors explain different degrees of coherence and effectiveness, and, in particular, whether or not, increasing CFSP institutionalisation has promoted coherence and effectiveness. After introducing the concepts of coherence and effectiveness, the thesis sketches the political and academic debate surrounding these concepts, and three key explanatory factors are singled out: interests, identities and institutions. The latter is taken as a starting point for analysis. Drawing on a historical institutionalist theory, it explores the CFSP institutionalisation and examines how the development of institutions, path dependency, unintended consequences , learning and socialisation have affected CFSP coherence and effectiveness over time. Furthermore, it aims to find out whether changes in institutions have facilitated convergence of Member States' interests regarding EU policy towards BiH, as well as the development of the EU's broader international role. The thesis then proceeds to investigate CFSP activities in BiH, analysing coherence and effectiveness in eight case studies. It concludes that CFSP institutionalisation has partially increased levels of effectiveness over the period 1991-2006. As for coherence, greater institutionalisation has resulted in some problems of coherence in the short term, but leaming has been a significant factor correcting these in the medium and long term. While path dependency has resulted in problems of coherence and effectiveness, socialisation processes have been important in facilitating consensus among the Member States. Finally, CFSP institutionalisation is seen as having had an impact on the EU's international role moving it from a civilian to a normative power, willing to resort to military instruments when necessary.

This thesis is conducted as a descriptive single case study to establish empirical knowledge regarding how securitisation is expressed in discourse by the Swedish policymaking elite, in other words “securitising actors”. The thesis takes an ontological approach of interpretivism with a theoretical approach of securitisation theory. Further, by utilising a methodological approach of an inductive method to empirically analyse 44 collected speeches from Folk och Försvars annual national conference and the annual foreign declaration in order to analyse what prominent themes emerged from the discourse. The analysis was conducted through a discourse analysis by applying two analytically driven questions derived from securitisation theory. This is in order to analyse how securitisation was expressed by the securitising actors, and what motivating factors could be identified for the shift from non-alignment to military-alignment in Swedish foreign and security policy. The result of the analysis indicated that with an ongoing security concern in Sweden’s immediate neighbourhood, securitisation was expressed as focusing on an increased national defence. Along with indicating a conflict of interests in Swedish foreign and security policy through the conflict of ideals and interests by breaking Sweden’s long-term tradition of military non-alignment. By this, this thesis aims to contribute to knowledge and to the overarching literature pertaining to discourse and shifts in Swedish foreign and security policy.

The aim of this essay is to explain how IR theory relates to the European Union. Thisis motivated by the extensive use of empirical and descriptive studies on the EU. Togenerate knowledge on how theory relates to the EU, two seemingly differenttheories are compared. Neorealism and social constructivism are used to generatehypotheses, which are then tested on a quantitive study on the EU’s Common Foreignand Security Policy. The study covers the years of 2003-2005 and uses a statisticalmethod to present to empirical findings, which is supplemented by previous studieson EU’s foreign policy. The theoretical framework enables comparison of the twoemployed theories’ explanatory powers. The essay concludes that none of the theoriesprovides satisfactory explanations of in regard to EU’s global power and/or influence.Nevertheless, they are able to explain different aspects of the developments of EU’sforeign policy. Further theoretical studies should be undertaken in order to highlightthe issues of theory vis-à-vis the European Union.