ABSTRACT: Conventional constructivism presents conforming to normative expectations as a constituent force in state legitimacy. However, what is broadly considered appropriate is not necessarily realized since concrete action can collide with other norms, just as prevention of human rights violations is generally viewed as desirable, but related action provokes a debate over sovereign integrity and the use of force. This article argues that this ‘norm dilemma’ prompts states to develop international organizations. That is to say, if international mechanisms exist to deal with regional contingencies effectively, such dilemmas that accompany intervention are more likely to be pre-empted. For this reason, states move towards development of institutions for security management. This article examines this claim by analyzing North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) reorganization through the intervention in Bosnia and explains why investigating norm dilemmas elucidates more aspects of this case than paying attention to the influence of humanitarian norms alone. Given the stress placed on conflict ‘prevention’ in NATO today, instead of promotion of intervention, as reiterated in the 2010 Strategic Concept, analysis of the first major crisis in post-Cold War Europe offers important insights into future management of norm dilemmas by the Alliance.

This article examines how allies who shared the same overall goal chose different tactics. It compares how Norway, Poland, and Lithuania pursued a strengthened emphasis on collective defense in the revision of NATO's strategic concept, which was adopted in 2010. In their efforts on influence the outcome of this process, the three allies made use of both bilateral and multilateral channels, but differed in terms of rhetoric, political access, use of media, and mix of national and alliance interests. The article finds that not only size, but also different levels of alliance maturity and diplomatic skills can explain the different tactics. As the study demonstrates, these differences not only create internal dynamics in the form of learning and division of labor, but they can also affect decision-making.

ABSTRACT: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATOs) changing role was debated in the face of the Strategic Concept adopted in late 2010. Two main roles can be identified in the debate; that of NATO as a defence organisation and a security organisation. The article analyses the implications of these roles for security governance and the Alliance's legitimacy – with emphasis on the novelties associated with the role of NATO as a security organisation. This development suggests an increasing need for security governance, something which is reflected in the debate. However, how for instance decision-making and implementation function in a more fragmented environment is unclear. If NATO develops its role as a security organisation new audiences are introduced that determine its appropriateness and the basis of the Alliance's input and output legitimacy changes.

NATO’s Strategy After the Lisbon Summit.
“Active Engagement, Modern Defence” is the leitmotiv for NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at the Alliance’s November 2010 Lisbon Summit. Does this new mission statement—intended to guide NATO for the next decade—entail the birth date of “New NATO”? Or does it only represent “old wine in new bottles”, as the German saying goes? Or is it rather a combination of both? The following analysis offers an interim assessment. It outlines the principle characteristics of the new strategy, its genesis, and its key themes and political-military priorities. Simultaneously, it seeks to identify those areas of implementation that will require significant efforts from NATO and its members alike. [ABSTRACT]

Like the three blind men and the elephant, NATO's principal stakeholders have (at least) three competing vsions of the organization's mission. Time's running out for bringing those visions into alignment.

This article reacts on the special section of Atlantisch Perspectief no. 8, 2010 about the NATO Lisbon summit.

André Dumoulin est Attaché à l’Ecole Royale Militaire (Bruxelles), enseignant à l’Université de Liège, membre du RMES

TransConflict Serbia, as part of its project ‘Facilitating Serbia’s Contribution to NATO’s New Strategic Concept’, organized a panel discussion in Belgrade on Monday 28th March to discuss key security developments since the adoption of NATO’s new Strategic Concept at the Lisbon summit in November 2010.

CIOR organized its annual Seminar around the topic “NATO’s New Strategic Concept and its Plan to Deal with a Complex World”. This annual geopolitical Seminar which traditionally always reflects topical NATO issues has been hosted by CIOR at the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation Conference Centre from 6 to 9 February 2011 in Wesseling, in Germany.

This paper is based on a presentation at the conference "Why NATO? Taking Stock of the Alliance
and its New Strategic Concept", organized by the University of Southern Denmark in Odense
on 29 November 2010, and will be part of an edited volume published by the Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS).

Discussion club with Yevgeny Shestakov. A joint RG website and Valdai Club project

"The adoption at the NATO’s Lisbon Summit, on 19 th-20th of November 2010, of the Strategic Concept for defence and security of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization’s member states represents an exquisite event for the political-military actuality at the end of the 21st century’s first decade. In the document’s elaboration process, there were involved important human and intellectual resources of the member states and NATO leadership. The final form adopted by the heads of states and governs of the allied countries, by its generality note imposed as a consequence of its adoption on consensus principle basis and the unclassified character of the publicized content, requires profound analyses to settle the implementation solutions of its provisions. We present a first trial to emphasize the determinations which will be the object of demarches at Alliance’s level and also at national level from the member states part and, why not, from partners part. Also, we rethink a series of interrogations and considerations that preoccupied us into the pre-adoption period."

'Dealing with new threats is central to NATO's revised strategic concept'

Ce sont les récents engagements militaires de l’OTAN qui conditionnent le nouveau concept stratégique dont l’Alliance a besoin pour s’établir au début du XXème siècle, sa capacité opérationnelle et ses partenariats, notamment avec la Fédération de Russie.

Report of the lunch meeting with Jamie Shea and Julian Lindley-French (22 October 2010)

Posted on 14 October 2010 on the Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario, Canada) website

Incl. "NATO in the Sprint to the Summit" by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen; "More Flexibility in Our Capabilities and Structures" by Giampaolo Di Paola, Chairman of the Military Committee; Personal Statements by the Ministers of Defence; Personal Statements by the Chiefs of Defence

Mr Sergey Lavrov is Foreign Minister of Russia

(William J. Lynn III is U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense)

Robert E. Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is Senior Advisor at the RAND Corporation

Mario A. Laborie Iglesias is Lieutenant-Colonel in the Spanish Army and member of the Elcano Royal Institute Working Group on NATO’s New Strategic Concept

An earlier version of this essay was published as a chapter in Bram Boxhoorn and David den Dunnen, eds., NATO’s New Strategic Concept: Moving Beyond the Status Quo? (The Hague: Netherlands Atlantic Association, 2009), pp. 30-53

Alex van Wijhe's blog is dedicated to the critical field of geopolitics [FROM THE WEBSITE]

Hall Gardner is Professor and Chair, Department of International and Comparative Politics American University of Paris

Joelle Fiss currently lives in New York and works for the US organisation Human Rights First. Prior to that, she worked six years in the European Parliament, as a policy advisor to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and previously as a press officer to the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs committee

B92 is a Serbian Media website

David J. Smith is Director, Georgian Security Analysis Center, Tbilisi

Emiliano Stornelli is a research fellow at the Magna Carta Foundation, a Rome-based Italian think tank, and an analyst for the Italian Atlantic Committee. He mainly focuses on NATO issues, Transatlantic Relations and the US foreign policy

It appears likely that NATO’s new strategic concept, although largely only confirming the status quo on nuclear policy, will also set out the bold decision to adopt a Ballistic Missile Defence System. Through this combination the new strategic concept looks set to herald radical change in long cherished principles about nuclear sharing and to directly address sensitive issues of Alliance cohesion and deterrence posture.

'The NATO Summit in Lisbon on 19 November was hailed as a 'tremendous success' by US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. But how much of a consensus was actually reached on the 'headline' issues? And were smaller details glossed over for political expediency?'

(The writer is a former diplomat.)

Gülnur Aybet is a senior lecturer at the University of Kent, England, and a professor at the İzmir University of Economics, Turkey. Gülnur Aybet also edited "NATO in Search of A Vision" (Georgetown University Press, 2010)

U.S. and European nuclear arms control and security experts criticized NATO's new "Strategic Concept" as a conservative, backward-looking policy, a missed opportunity to reduce the number and role of the 200 forward-deployed U.S. tactical nuclear bombs and engage Russia in a dialogue on removing all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.

This article is part of a New Atlanticist discussion - The 2010 Lisbon Summit: A New Atlanticist Forum - on the Summit's expectations, areas of focus, and potential outcomes.

Zaur Shiriyev is foreign policy analyst at Center for Strategic Studies in Baku, Azerbaijan.

'As the Lisbon Summit approaches, momentum is gathering on the adoption of NATO's new Strategic Concept and the prospect of making missile defence one of its core missions. Whilst the United States and NATO are close to reaching a consensus on missile defence, Russia and Turkey's concerns with hosting a radar site still need to be addressed more fully.'

The brief analyses features of the strategic environment in which NATO operates, proposing a critical reading of the Alliance’s internal and external sensitivities and its credibility in being a global player to address increasingly asymmetric challenges. Shaping NATO’s future role and identity requires a comprehensive harmonisation of the dual nature of security - global (common to all nations) and national (“property” of the state). [From the author]