Junior allies in wars of choice: Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Junior allies in wars of choice : Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War. / Baciu, Cornelia; Wivel, Anders.

In: European Journal of International Security, 25.01.2024.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Baciu, C & Wivel, A 2024, 'Junior allies in wars of choice: Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War', European Journal of International Security. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.33

APA

Baciu, C., & Wivel, A. (2024). Junior allies in wars of choice: Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War. European Journal of International Security. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.33

Vancouver

Baciu C, Wivel A. Junior allies in wars of choice: Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War. European Journal of International Security. 2024 Jan 25. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.33

Author

Baciu, Cornelia ; Wivel, Anders. / Junior allies in wars of choice : Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War. In: European Journal of International Security. 2024.

Bibtex

@article{4acd9e916f7449d8acb8a7e0eeb16d7a,
title = "Junior allies in wars of choice: Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War",
abstract = "When and how do party politics matter in junior allies{\textquoteright} decisions to engage in multinational military operations? Developing a new role theory model of party politics and multinational military operations, we put forward a two-level argument. First, we argue that the rationale for military action is defined in a contest between political parties with expectations of what constitutes the proper purpose (constitutive roles) and functions (functional roles) of the state. Second, we hold that material and ontological insecurities reduce political space for contestation and debate, but that junior allies tend to focus on role demands for {\textquoteleft}good states{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}good allies{\textquoteright} rather than the nature and aim of the military operation. To unpack our argument, we analyse the debate among political parties in Romania and Denmark leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concluding our analysis, we outline the implications for the changing security order and current debates in NATO member states on how to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Parliamentary debates, Iraq War, Romania, Denmark, Oversight, Foreign Policy",
author = "Cornelia Baciu and Anders Wivel",
year = "2024",
month = jan,
day = "25",
doi = "10.1017/eis.2023.33",
language = "English",
journal = "European Journal of International Security",
issn = "2057-5637",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Junior allies in wars of choice

T2 - Party politics and role conceptions in Danish and Romanian decisions on the Iraq War

AU - Baciu, Cornelia

AU - Wivel, Anders

PY - 2024/1/25

Y1 - 2024/1/25

N2 - When and how do party politics matter in junior allies’ decisions to engage in multinational military operations? Developing a new role theory model of party politics and multinational military operations, we put forward a two-level argument. First, we argue that the rationale for military action is defined in a contest between political parties with expectations of what constitutes the proper purpose (constitutive roles) and functions (functional roles) of the state. Second, we hold that material and ontological insecurities reduce political space for contestation and debate, but that junior allies tend to focus on role demands for ‘good states’ and ‘good allies’ rather than the nature and aim of the military operation. To unpack our argument, we analyse the debate among political parties in Romania and Denmark leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concluding our analysis, we outline the implications for the changing security order and current debates in NATO member states on how to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

AB - When and how do party politics matter in junior allies’ decisions to engage in multinational military operations? Developing a new role theory model of party politics and multinational military operations, we put forward a two-level argument. First, we argue that the rationale for military action is defined in a contest between political parties with expectations of what constitutes the proper purpose (constitutive roles) and functions (functional roles) of the state. Second, we hold that material and ontological insecurities reduce political space for contestation and debate, but that junior allies tend to focus on role demands for ‘good states’ and ‘good allies’ rather than the nature and aim of the military operation. To unpack our argument, we analyse the debate among political parties in Romania and Denmark leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concluding our analysis, we outline the implications for the changing security order and current debates in NATO member states on how to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Parliamentary debates

KW - Iraq War

KW - Romania

KW - Denmark

KW - Oversight

KW - Foreign Policy

U2 - 10.1017/eis.2023.33

DO - 10.1017/eis.2023.33

M3 - Journal article

JO - European Journal of International Security

JF - European Journal of International Security

SN - 2057-5637

ER -

ID: 384833613