权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

NATO after Afghanistan

阿富汗之后的北约

基本信息

批准号：
ES/J022063/1
负责人：
Mark Webber
金额：
$ 2.28万
依托单位：
University of Birmingham
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2012
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2012 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FJ022063%2F1
关键词：
NATO after Afghanistan

项目摘要

NATO has in the post Cold War period confronted a series of internal crises generated by external events (in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) which have raised questions over its purpose, effectiveness and even its very survival. These questions have become more insistent as NATO has set a deadline of 2014 to terminate its combat mission in Afghanistan. This is already being regarded as a significant watershed - not simply for Afghanistan, which with NATO assistance is rapidly constructing a national army and police force, but for the Alliance itself, which at that point may well face the prospect of mission failure (Chaudhuri and Farrell, 2011). Whatever the outcome, the ISAF mission by 2014 will have been the longest and costliest in NATO's history and will have exacted a severe human, political and financial cost upon its lead nations (including the UK). Such a state of affairs, will (and arguably, already has had) far-reaching implications for NATO's strategic predilection for expeditionary, out-of-area missions. Thus, the Libya mission has eschewed counter-insurgency and nation-building, and has been premised on a narrowly-defined political and normative justification. It thus stands as an example of the type of operation NATO may favour. That mission nonetheless has also given rise to adverse comment - on the absconding of American leadership, capability deficiencies and unequal burden-sharing (Clarke, 2011).The paradox of NATO's susceptibility to crisis is that the Alliance has demonstrated an ongoing versatility in the face of a rapidly evolving security environment. NATO has reformed its command structures and strategic concept, enlarged its membership, undertaken a variety of out-of-area operations and established partnerships with key state actors and international organisations. It has also developed a wide range of security tasks - missile defence, anti-piracy missions, cyber defence and security-sector reform among others. Yet NATO continues to attract criticism from NGOs, academics, journalists and even its own member governments for being slow to adapt, directionless and ill-equipped to meet its stated objectives. In this light, a number of fundamental questions arise of both academic and policy significance:1. What explains the seeming disjuncture between NATO's ongoing activism and the narrative of crisis which it attracts? 2. What are the underlying structures of power, norms and governance which inhere in NATO and, more broadly, within which the organisation is 'nested'? How do these structures explain the persistence of the organisation?3. How effective has NATO been in developing and discharging its post-Cold War missions?4. Is the Afghan crisis a qualitatively new one for the Alliance? And will it prove of lasting consequence in shaping NATO purpose?In addressing these questions, the proposed seminar series begins from a premise that theoretical attention to NATO is currently underdeveloped. Considerable benefit is thus to be had from sustaining academic dialogue on the Alliance. Not only does this help fashion NATO theory, it also contributes to broader debates on institutional adaptation in international relations, organisational learning and the structures of international order. The seminars will draw upon an international group of scholars informed both by mainstream theory and approaches which have only recently been applied to NATO. This academic network on NATO is a work in progress and so the seminar series is geared toward developing and taking forward an innovative research agenda.Academic reflection, however, requires validation in practice. Propositions on the Alliance will thus be submitted to the test of empirical and policy-relevant case studies as well as the opinion of policy makers and interested civil society groups. Each seminar will be devoted to a specific set of issues that are of theoretical, normative and policy concern.

北约在后冷战时期面临着一系列由外部事件（巴尔干半岛、伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚）引发的内部危机，这些危机对其目的、有效性甚至其生存提出了质疑。随着北约将2014年定为结束其在阿富汗作战使命的最后期限，这些问题变得更加紧迫。这已经被视为一个重要的分水岭-不仅是对阿富汗而言，阿富汗在北约的援助下正在迅速建立一支国家军队和警察部队，而且对联盟本身而言，届时联盟很可能面临使命失败的前景（Chaudhuri和Farrell，2011年）。无论结果如何，到2014年，国际安全援助部队的使命将是北约历史上时间最长、代价最高的，并将使其牵头国家（包括英国）付出沉重的人力、政治和财政代价。这样的事态，将（可以说，已经）对北约的战略偏好远征，域外任务产生深远的影响。因此，利比亚使命避开了反叛乱和国家建设，并以狭隘的政治和规范理由为借口。因此，它是北约可能喜欢的行动类型的一个例子。尽管如此，这一使命也引起了负面评论--关于美国领导地位的消失、能力不足和不平等的负担分担（Clarke，2011）。北约易受危机影响的矛盾之处在于，面对迅速变化的安全环境，北约表现出了持续的多功能性。北约改革了其指挥结构和战略概念，扩大了成员国，开展了各种区域外行动，并与主要国家行为体和国际组织建立了伙伴关系。它还制定了一系列广泛的安全任务--导弹防御、反海盗任务、网络防御和安全部门改革等。然而，北约继续受到非政府组织、学者、记者甚至其成员国政府的批评，认为北约适应缓慢、没有方向、装备不足，无法实现其既定目标。在这种情况下，出现了一些具有学术和政策意义的基本问题：1。如何解释北约正在进行的行动主义和它所吸引的危机叙述之间的脱节？2.北约内在的权力、规范和治理的基本结构是什么？更广泛地说，北约是“嵌套”在其中的？这些结构如何解释组织的持久性？3.北约在发展和履行其冷战后的任务方面有多有效？4.对联盟来说，阿富汗危机在性质上是新的吗？它会对北约的目标产生持久的影响吗？在解决这些问题时，拟议的系列研讨会从一个前提开始，即理论上对北约的关注目前还不发达。因此，保持关于联盟的学术对话将带来相当大的好处。这不仅有助于形成北约理论，也有助于更广泛的辩论，在国际关系，组织学习和国际秩序的结构的制度适应。研讨会将利用一个国际学者小组，他们了解最近才应用于北约的主流理论和方法。这个关于北约的学术网络正在进行中，因此系列研讨会旨在制定和推进创新的研究议程。然而，学术反思需要在实践中得到验证。因此，关于联盟的提议将接受经验和政策相关案例研究的检验，并听取决策者和有关民间社会团体的意见。每次研讨会将专门讨论一系列具有理论、规范和政策意义的具体问题。