| 1. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
Beyond Burdensharing and European Strategic Autonomy : Rebuilding Transatlantic Security After the Ukraine War
- 2022
-
In: European Foreign Affairs Review. - 1384-6299 .- 1875-8223. ; 27:03, s. 383-400
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The war in Ukraine unleashed in early 2022 may temporarily obscure the long-term trend that the United States is shrinking its military footprint in and around Europe, as the defence posture of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Central Europe suddenly was bolstered by tens ofthousands of additional US troops. For as long as the war drags on, certainly, these reinforcements will stay in place. But if, and when, the war ends or shifts to attrition warfare stretching out for years, aswas the case after the 2014 annexation of the Crimea, one can easily envisage changes in how European governments manage security and defence issues among themselves and in relation to their North American counterparts. While the debate on transatlantic security so far has played out in two distinct modes, either focusing on the economic side of burdensharing or projecting a vision of European strategic autonomy, there is a need for a more sober understanding of the future division of labour, one that would be grounded in the right blend of economics and deterrence. The main suggestion of this article is that stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean ‘split the difference’ and strike a new grand bargain on the basis of their respective strengths. Once key issues of financial equity and militarydeterrence have been adequately addressed, European governments will still have their work cut out forthemselves. They must elaborate solutions to specific challenges at the sub-strategic theatre level and atthe same time navigate the complexities of optimizing defence reforms, aligning regional force designs and rendering foreign policy compatible with the strategic priorities of the European Union (EU) and Europe at large.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
Sweden’s 2017–18 UNSC Formula : Mobilizing the MFA’s Competitive Advantages, Highlighting Africa, and Boosting the E10
- 2023
-
In: International Peacekeeping. - 1353-3312 .- 1743-906X. ; 30:3, s. 358-379
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article examines Sweden’s successful 2016 bid to serve at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and shows that the subsequent 2017–18 tenure relied on a formula with three key elements. One was to mobilize the competitive advantages of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and a second to systematically highlight Africa-related priorities. A third element was to boost the standing of the E10 category of members in day-to-day diplomatic practice. After securing a plurality of votes in the General Assembly, Swedish diplomats went to work with a unique constellation of concurrently serving likeminded countries, generally receptive to Stockholm’s priorities. The formula appears to have contributed to a solid performance in 2017–2018. That said, the UNSC is not conducive to individual E10 members having a lasting impact on its institutional memory.
|
|
| 4. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
Ukrainakriget och den regelbaserade världsordningen : en initialbedömning
- 2023
-
In: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. - 0039-0747. ; 125:3, s. 545-572
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Russia’s war in Ukraine is primarily an existential threat to the Ukrainian society and its institutions, and furthermore an enormous challenge for neighboring countries, the EU and NATO. Yet beyond the European continent, one can also discern the contours of an alternative world order, in that today’s rule-based system anchored in international legal principles of national sovereignty, formal equality and territorial integrity are less respected. The article examines how the international community, and especially the most resourceful actors, have responded to the war in Ukraine as an indication of levels of support for a rules-based world order with or without “liberal characteristics”, or for a system where regional great powers wield greater impact in their immediate neighborhood. To arrive at a nuanced analysis, a range of concepts and methods from the study of international relations and foreign policy decision-making are employed.
|
|
| 5. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
European Participation in International Military Operations : National Decision-Making and the Role of EU Institutions
- 2020
-
In: European Union Security and Defence. - Cham : Springer. - 9783030488925 ; , s. 95-100
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This book explores the multilayer nexus among inter-related international and regional security parameters that critically define the EU's rapidly changing security environment. In terms of intensity, complexity and urgency these changes constitute challenges that threaten the very core of European security - both internal and external. In a fluid and transitional international environment of diversified needs and polymorphic threats the space dimension acquires a novel unified meaning. The book closely examines the EU's current strategic, organisational and defence capabilities regarding global, regional and domestic challenges such as terrorism, systemic instability, global order and a number of crucial hindrances to transatlantic cooperation. The chapters offer not only valuable theoretical insights, but also unique perspectives on operational and organisational elements of EU applied policies based on the testimonies of field experts. The combination of theory-based approaches and the demonstration of the EU's operational capabilities and weaknesses as externalized through its global strategy choices provide an overall evaluation of adopted policies and their effects. This is crucial in a global transition period that will define the EU's role and its potential to produce desired outcomes through synergies with its strategic allies.
|
|
| 6. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
A brief intellectual history of geopolitical thought and its relevance to the Baltic Sea region
- 2018
-
In: Global Affairs. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2334-0460 .- 2334-0479. ; 4:4-5, s. 475-485
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article outlines a general history of the intellectual origins and development of geopolitical thought. It provides categories for assessing contemporary expressions of this phenomenon, and then discusses the applicability of these tools to the Baltic Sea region. The article focuses on eliciting and juxtaposing contrasts between the three classical bodies of literature that evolved largely in parallel, and ends up briefly commenting on a fourth, partly “critical” approach. The main takeaway is that considering all four geopolitical approaches before applying any of them to the Baltic Sea realm encourages analysts to embrace a more holistic and dynamic viewpoint than each of the alternatives individually can offer. Such a conceptualization promises to forge analytical linkages between a series of relevant, geographically contingent circumstances including resources, arenas and communities that represent prerequisites and opportunities incrisis, conflict, or war.
|
|
| 7. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-, et al.
(author)
-
Bulgarian Democratic Institutions at Thirty : A Balance Sheet
- 2020. - 1
-
Book (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Thirty years after Bulgaria’s democratic breakthrough, this book provides a “balance sheet” of the country’s democratic institutions through a number of interdisciplinary contributions. The volume is organized around three themes—democratic institutions, civil society, and European Union (EU) processes—and examines such topics such as voting, political parties, populism, media, civil society organizations, identity, and the rule of law. While the contributors argue that Bulgaria’s democracy is successful in terms of the procedural norms of democracy, civic participation, and compliance with EU rules, they also identify serious problem areas. Bulgaria’s democratic institutions struggle with obstacles such as populist Euroscepticism, political elitism, corruption, and a lack of political accountability, though this volume fully acknowledges the historical development of Bulgarian democracy, including its achievements and continuing setbacks.
|
|
| 8. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
Kärnvapen i en alltmer multipolär värld : forskningsöversikt och jämförande analys av amerikansk, brittisk, fransk och rysk doktrin
- 2018
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The first part of this report provides an overview of the history of nuclear weapons doctrine, as it evolved in parallel to the practice of warfare and war planning in the mid-1940s and subsequently as an integral element of the cold war. A distinction is made between the early development of nuclear weapons doctrine, when United States held a dominant position in the field, and the near-parity situation that ensued in the late 1960s and onwards. The second part of the report consists of an analysis of American, British, French and Russian nuclear weapons doctrine between 1991 and 2018, illustrating how a period of low tension was gradually replaced with a reinvigoration of mutual suspicion after the year 2000. A third part briefly examines recent contributions to the American scholarly debate about the utility of nuclear weapons for strategic thought in a world moving toward polycentrism, as it revisits earlier theoretical insights and challenges conventional wisdoms. The fourth and final part elicits lessons for Sweden in particular.Overall, the report demonstrates that nuclear weapons consistently have represented an integral element of managing security risks in the Western hemisphere but that domestic political and defense industry considerations play in as well. It also suggests that doctrinal adjustments mirror the major concerns of policymakers in this regard and that nuclear powers are well aware of special obligations and privileges ascribed to them by countries that lack this category of weapons. A world in which the United States wields the greatest share of this power (unipolarity) will nonetheless be quite different from one in which two countries possess roughly the same capacity (bipolarity), and yet fundamentally different from one in which three or more countries compete to gain, or sustain, an edge toward others (multipolarity).To the extent that the world is moving toward greater security competition including the dimension of nuclear power, it will inevitably be more difficult for individual states to remain on the sidelines, unless they are ready to compromise their political autonomy. In terms of options for aligning Sweden with a broader security arrangement in the near future, there are only three feasible alternatives that may offset the risk of nuclear coercion: responding within the framework of the EU, forge closer ties to NATO, or build a bilateral relationship to the United States. Each such option comes with its own set of assets and liabilities, as does remaining a passive bystander.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Engelbrekt, Kjell, Professor, 1964-
(author)
-
USA:s bilaterala säkerhets- och försvarsuppgörelser : kartläggning och karakterisering av en ofta underskattad dimension
- 2018
-
In: Kungl Krigsvetenskapsakademiens Handlingar och Tidskrift. - Stockholm : Kungl. Krigsvetenskapsakademien. - 0023-5369. ; :3, s. 74-93
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article provides an overview and concise analysis of the often underappreciated bilateral security and defense agreements that the United States entertains with a significant number of countries around the world. It sets out by emphasizing the role of the United States in sustaining the world order at a systemic level and notes that Washington’s bilateral relations, albeit forming a significant part of the overall security and defense arrangements, receive much less attention than multilateral alliances and systemically conditioned alignments. After briefly reviewing recent literature on this subject, the article examines the process by which the United States enters into agreements of varying legal and political status, and then discusses the ramifications and limitations of the respective types of arrangements. In turn, the article examines formal bilateral treaties (mainly with East Asian states), politically motivated security and defense agreements (mainly in the wider Middle East), and, lastly, executive agreements initiated by the presidential administration, the Defense Department or the State Department. The article ends by suggesting that the administration of Donald J. Trump—given campaign statements and the first six months in office—is less likely than many of its predecessors to enter into new agreements and formalize existing alignments, and that the viability of existing ones may become increasingly dependent on America’s counterparts demonstrably living up to their end of the bargain.
|
|
