This paper asks why states that are already members of alliances regionalize their defence cooperation. Or, in the selected case, why do Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden cooperate in the framework of Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) although they are either member of NATO, the EU or both? In a globalized interdependent world, membership in multiple alliances and frameworks of cooperation is not rare. Cooperation on defence issues is not the only one having an influence on security but the area with the most direct one.
Taking the diverging interests and problems of European states such as capability gaps into account that create different needs and possibilities, it is plausible to theorize that regionalization of defence cooperation is caused by a dissatisfaction how the existing alliance addresses those needs. The main motivations stated by politicians are economic benefits and great homogeneity of the Nordic security community. Deduced from that I propose two hypotheses, one that sees the perceived need to save funds as proportional to the probability of seeking regionalization and the other putting the urgency of such a need into the same positive relationship to the regionalization of defence cooperation.
The third hypothesis relates the regionalization back to the defence-related alliance(s) the respective states are already part of by suggesting that regionalization is a way to exert influence over alliances that a state is not part of. There are scholars who argue that what NORDEFCO aims to do is better handled directly through NATO or the EU because duplication is a real risk leading to a less efficient utilization of resources (Petersson, 2010c; Hofmann, 2009) or decrease the centrality of NATO and the EU as institutions (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2015). Regionalization of defence cooperation is an ambivalent policy that is not always perceived positively and does not automatically create more security.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Regionalization out of insufficiently addressed needs
Methodology
What are the reasons for NORDEFCO?
H1- The rational/materialistic hypothesis
H2 - Regional security by homogeneity
H3 - Constructive asymmetry
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
The primary research objective of this paper is to investigate the motivations behind the regionalization of defence cooperation among alliance members, specifically focusing on the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO). The study seeks to answer why states that are already members of major security alliances (like NATO or the EU) feel the need to establish additional, smaller-scale regional defence frameworks. The author explores how dissatisfaction with the ability of larger alliances to address specific national defence needs drives states toward regional solutions, proposing hypotheses based on rational-materialistic incentives, regional homogeneity, and the concept of constructive asymmetry.
- The role of economic benefits and resource savings in initiating regional defence projects.
- The impact of geographical and political homogeneity on shared threat perceptions and military cooperation.
- The concept of "constructive asymmetry" as a mechanism to exert influence and maintain access to diverse security frameworks.
- The comparative analysis of why regionalized cooperation is perceived as more efficient or flexible than broader alliance structures.
Extract from the Book
Regionalization out of insufficiently addressed needs
If one takes a look at historical and current examples of regionalized defence cooperation as well as the accompanying literature, it becomes clear that there is not one single motive why states regionalize their defence efforts. Among the commonly mentioned factors that make the regionalization of defence cooperation more likely are constants such as geological location and common borders (although borders can change, they only do in exceptional cases since the dissolution of the Soviet Union) or climatic conditions (e.g. Saxi 2011). But as the question here is about the reasons why such cooperations are initiated and implemented, the focus lies on the variables that do change.
This leads to the following theory: The stronger the perception of a state that the alliance(s) it is member of do(es) not sufficiently address(es) its needs related to defence, the higher the probability that the state seeks the regionalization of its defence cooperation.
The assumed mechanism here is that when it comes to concrete action, alliances like NATO or the EU have too many members, i.e. are too heterogeneous and lack enough resources to address the needs of every single member sufficiently. A member state that sees its needs to be not met therefore has an incentive to seek regionalization. According to McCormick (2011, p.16) regionalism is the “promotion of cooperation and collective action among a group of states based on the identification of shared interests, common goals, the promotion of efficiency, the pooling of resources, and the creation of opportunity”. The characteristics of what I conceptualize as the regionalization of defence cooperation are therefore the small number of states participating in the multinational cooperation, the homogeneity of these states, a shared threat perception and a common referent object. A smaller group of states that is more homogenous in geographical location and geopolitical environment, military culture, political identity and in what they perceive as threats will be able to define a more precise referent object for their defence efforts and therefore be able to cooperate more according to the needs of the respective members. Concerning the needs related to defence, I test different hypotheses with different metatheoretical backgrounds.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the problem statement regarding why states regionalize defence cooperation despite existing alliance memberships and introduces the three core hypotheses tested in the paper.
Regionalization out of insufficiently addressed needs: Establishes the theoretical foundation, arguing that states seek regional cooperation when their specific defence needs are not adequately met by larger, heterogeneous alliances like NATO or the EU.
Methodology: Outlines the qualitative approach of the study, which examines perceptions of defence ministers and academic literature to assess the motives behind initiating and maintaining NORDEFCO.
What are the reasons for NORDEFCO?: Introduces the practical context of NORDEFCO and presents the framework for the three distinct, non-mutually exclusive hypotheses explored in the subsequent sections.
H1- The rational/materialistic hypothesis: Analyzes the economic dimension, exploring how perceived budget constraints and the need for cost efficiency in procurement and training drive the formation of regional clusters.
H2 - Regional security by homogeneity: Explores the constructivist argument that shared values, geographical proximity, and common threat perceptions—particularly concerning Russia—facilitate tighter regional military cooperation.
H3 - Constructive asymmetry: Examines how states with different institutional affiliations (NATO vs. EU) use regional cooperation to "plug into" and influence security networks they might otherwise be excluded from.
Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, acknowledges the limitations of focusing on state-level unitary actors, and suggests future research directions, such as testing the theory on other regional groups like the Visegrád Group.
Keywords
Regionalization, Defence Cooperation, NORDEFCO, Nordic Security, NATO, European Union, Collective Defence, Security Alliances, Resource Efficiency, Threat Perception, Constructive Asymmetry, Geopolitical Clustered, Military Interoperability, Regionalism, Security Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper examines why states that are already members of major international security alliances choose to regionalize their defence cooperation through smaller, more focused frameworks like NORDEFCO.
What are the primary themes explored in the study?
The study centers on three themes: economic rationalization (cost-saving), regional homogeneity (shared security interests), and the strategic advantage of "constructive asymmetry" in alliance memberships.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to determine why the Nordic countries maintain NORDEFCO despite their existing memberships in NATO and/or the EU, theorizing that this regionalization stems from dissatisfaction with the ability of larger alliances to address specific national defence needs.
Which scientific methods were applied in this work?
The author employs a qualitative case study approach, analyzing official government documents, statements from defence ministers, and relevant academic literature to assess state perceptions of defence needs and alliance efficacy.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details the theoretical framework of "insufficiently addressed needs," investigates economic drivers, explores how homogeneity impacts security perceptions, and explains how divergent alliance memberships can be used strategically.
Which keywords define this research?
Key terms include regionalization, defence cooperation, NORDEFCO, NATO, European Union, and constructive asymmetry.
What is the "rational/materialistic hypothesis" in the context of NORDEFCO?
This hypothesis posits that the desire to save financial resources, exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis and rising defence costs, served as a primary catalyst for Nordic states to consolidate cooperation projects under a unified framework.
How does "constructive asymmetry" benefit member states?
It allows states like Norway and Iceland (who are NATO members but not EU members) to access EU security initiatives, and Sweden and Finland (who are EU members) to cooperate closely with NATO, effectively bridging institutional gaps through regional collaboration.
- Quote paper
- Christin Rudolph (Author), 2018, Regionalization of Defence Cooperation by Alliance Members. The Case of Nordic Defence Cooperation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/501248
