IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v53y2015i3p542-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The European Commission and the European Defence Agency: A Case of Rivalry?

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Fiott

Abstract

This article analyzes relations between the European Commission and the European Defence Agency (EDA) as they relate to European defence-industrial co-operation. To undertake the analysis, the article departs from a strictly intergovernmental-supranational study of institutional relations by building upon the concept of ‘mandate overlap’. Additionally, the focus is on the constitutive policy approach of each institution. The EDA's approach is characterized as ad hoc and project-based in nature, and the European Commission's approach is structural and market-based. Once the two approaches are delineated, the article then investigates whether either of the bodies has deviated from their respective mandates over a period beginning in 1996 and ending in 2013. On this basis, the conclusion is that there is evidence of rivalry between the two bodies, especially when European Union Member States decide to use either entity to secure their interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Fiott, 2015. "The European Commission and the European Defence Agency: A Case of Rivalry?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 542-557, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:53:y:2015:i:3:p:542-557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/jcms.12217
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphanie C. Hofmann, 2011. "Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 101-120, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moritz Weiss & Michael Blauberger, 2016. "Judicialized Law-Making and Opportunistic Enforcement: Explaining the EU's Challenge of National Defence Offsets," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 444-462, March.
    2. Svetlana Makarova, 2018. "European Central Bank Footprints On Inflation Forecast Uncertainty," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 637-652, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fuß, Julia & Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Saravia, Andrés & Zürn, Michael, 2021. "Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2021-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Yoram Z. Haftel & Tobias Lenz, 2022. "Measuring institutional overlap in global governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 323-347, April.
    3. Reischl, Gunilla, 2012. "Designing institutions for governing planetary boundaries — Lessons from global forest governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 33-40.
    4. Thomas Gehring & Benjamin Faude, 2014. "A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 471-498, December.
    5. Stephen, Matthew D., 2021. "China's New Multilateral Institutions: A Framework and Research Agenda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(3), pages 807-834.
    6. Brigitte Weiffen & Leslie Wehner & Detlef Nolte, 2013. "Overlapping regional security institutions in South America: The case of OAS and UNASUR," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 370-389, December.
    7. Faude, Benjamin, 2020. "International institutions in hard times: how institutional complexity increases resilience," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108663, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Bernhard Reinsberg & Oliver Westerwinter, 2023. "Institutional Overlap in Global Governance and the Design of Intergovernmental Organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 693-724, October.
    9. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Oliver Westerwinter, 2022. "The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 233-262, April.
    10. Jonathan Ariel & Yoram Z. Haftel, 2021. "Mostly in its Backyard: Security Provisions in EU Economic Agreements," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1419-1437, November.
    11. Yoram Z. Haftel & Stephanie C. Hofmann, 2019. "Rivalry and Overlap: Why Regional Economic Organizations Encroach on Security Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2180-2206, October.
    12. Diana Panke, 2020. "Regional cooperation through the lenses of states: Why do states nurture regional integration?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 475-504, April.
    13. Patrick Bayer & Christopher Marcoux & Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "Choosing international organizations: When do states and the World Bank collaborate on environmental projects?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 413-440, December.
    14. Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Zürn, Michael, 2020. "After fragmentation: Norm collisions, interface conflicts, and conflict management," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 241-267.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:53:y:2015:i:3:p:542-557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.