Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberative institutional design and US defence and security agreements: comparing Canadian agreements to those with partners and competitors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Transatlantic Studies Aims and scope

Abstract

What is the American strategy for developing non-treaty defence and security agreements with Canada and other partners? Kimball’s 2017 Canadian–US defence and security agreement (DSA) data tested a rationalist institutionalist model of agreement institutionalization. This research examines DSA diffusion comparing US DS cooperation with competitors and partners from 1955 to 2005. Non-treaty cooperation via exchanges of diplomatic notes/letters, memoranda of understanding, etc., require legislative notification but not approval. Those arrangements permit the flexibility, speed, and adaptation necessary in defence project management (i.e. NORAD, Eurofighter, F-35). For states with limited budgets, bilateral defence contracting with the USA is more efficient economically, than unilateral provision, but partnering incurs risks (entrapment, abandonment, burden-sharing, etc.). This research contributes to the literature on transatlantic relations by reflecting upon patterns of US cooperation with Canada, other partners as well as main competitors. It closes with recommendations based on anticipated changes to polarity and the defence cooperation status quo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Leeds, Brett. 2003. Alliance reliability in times of war: Explaining state decisions to violate treaties. International Organization, 57(4): 801–827. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303574057.

  2. Lipson, Charles. 1991. Why are some international agreements informal? International Organization, 45(4): 495–538. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706946; Koremenos, Barbara. 2013. Continent of international law. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(4): 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712448904.; Kimball, Anessa. 2017. Examining informal defence and security arrangement’s legalization: Canada-US agreements, 1955–2005. International Journal, 72(3): 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702017723931.

  3. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55: 761–800. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3078615.

  4. Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law.’

  5. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA,’ 318. Milner, Helen. 1997. Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kimball, Anessa. 2018. Future uncertainty, strategic defense, and North American defense cooperation: Rational institutionalist arguments pragmatically suggest NORAD’s adaptation over replacement. In North American strategic defense in the 21st century, ed. Christian Leuprecht, Joel Sokolsky and Thomas Hughes, 122–137. New York: Springer Verlag Books. The distinction being the public endorsement required through legislative ratification versus informal arrangements requiring legislative notification, usually to the relevant committee. Milner, ‘Interests, Institutions.’

  6. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  7. Bilateral nuclear DSA offer a sizable distinct subset of transatlantic Anglo-cooperation though Kimball shows the binational command NORAD occupies another subset of agreements, Kimball, ‘Future uncertainty, strategic defense,’. Kavanagh, Julie. 2014. U.S. security-related agreements In Force since 1955: Introducing a new database, RR763. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. See Table 4.

  8. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  9. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  10. Kavanagh identifies 138 DS agreements between the US and Canada, Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’ The 82 cases selected by Kimball represent over 60% of them, Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’ Kimball examined joint defense products/goods excluding status of forces/extradition agreements, cooperation for civilian uses, letters of intent, terms of reference pursuant to agreements, conventions or treaties, Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  11. Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law,’; Koremenos, Barbara. 2008. When, what, and why do states choose to delegate. Law & Contemporary Problems, 71(1): 151–192. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27592225; Koremenos, Barbara and Allison Nau. 2010. Exit, no exit. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 21(1): 81–120. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/vol21/iss1/6; Leeds, ‘Alliance reliability.’

  12. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  13. Walt, Steven. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  14. Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law,’; Todd Sandler, Global Collective Action, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

  15. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randall Siverson and James Morrow. 2003. The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Kimball, Anessa. 2010. Political survival, the distributional dilemma and alliance formation. Journal of Peace Research, 47(4): 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310368346.

  16. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what states makes of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2): 391–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858.

  17. A constructivist analysis employs a much larger corpus of documentation including speeches, statements, national policy documents, etc. to answer research questions. In addition to the examination of additional actors, i.e. lobby groups, DS industry interests and academia; which is beyond the scope of the current project on states.

  18. Koremenos et al., ‘Rational design of institutions,’ and Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law.’

  19. Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law,’ 662.

  20. The term legalization here is used interchangeably with institutionalization though legalization refers to variations between soft to hard law. Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3): 421–456. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551280; Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA,’ and Kimball, ‘Future uncertainty, strategic defense,’ for details.

  21. Abbott and Snidal, ‘Hard and soft law,’ 401.

  22. Abbott and Snidal, ‘Hard and soft law,’ 401.

  23. Abbott and Snidal, ‘Hard and soft law,’ 401.

  24. The interest herein is the legalization or institutionalization, itself, and not compliance. Abbott and Snidal, ‘Hard and soft law,’ 403.

  25. Lipson, ‘Why are some informal,’ 498.

  26. Lipson, ‘Why are some informal,’ 498.

  27. Lipson, ‘Why are some informal,’ 537.

  28. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA,’ 380.

  29. Leeds, Brett, Jeffrey Ritter, Sara Mitchell, and Andrew Long. 2002. Alliance treaty obligations and provisions, 1815–1944. International Interactions, 28(3): 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653.

  30. Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law.’

  31. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  32. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  33. Leeds et al., ‘Alliance treaty obligations,’; Koremenos, ‘Continent of international law.’

  34. Lipson, ‘Why are some informal?’; Abbott and Snidal, ‘Hard and soft law,’; Schaffer, Gregory and Mark Pollack. 2010. Hard vs soft law: Alternatives, complements and antagonists in international governance. Minnesota Law Review, 94: 712–799. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1426123; Bélanger, Louis, and Kim Fontaine-Skronski. 2012. Legalisation in international relations: A conceptual analysis. Social Science Information, 51(2): 238–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018412437110.

  35. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  36. Kimball, Anessa. 2021. ‘Managing risks, side payments, and multi-institutional enlargement: The role of US defence and Big Four investment agreements and candidate risks on NATO, EU Enlargement. European Politics and Society, 22(5): 696–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1820152.

  37. Text of the agreement must be publicly available for inclusion in the data.

  38. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA,’ 393.

  39. The current population of agreements collected is over 260.

  40. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  41. For example, Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA,’; Kimball, ‘Future uncertainty, strategic defence.’

  42. Montenegro & North Macedonia excluded due to data reliability. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  43. Iceland is the only NATO partner with no standing army.

  44. These data end in 2014, recalling Poland signed multiple agreements since relating to the deployment of the European phased adaptive approach for strategic defense, as a NATO partner.

  45. Kimball, ‘Managing risks.’

  46. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’

  47. See www.globalfirepower.com.

  48. Excludes the UK whose highly linked position, see Table 2, skews the figure.

  49. Kimball, ‘Future uncertainty, strategic defense.’

  50. Also, the partners that would join NATO in the 2003 round of enlargement. Kimball, ‘Managing risks.’

  51. Includes agreements with 30 partners or fewer.

  52. Wada, Kenji and Shinichi Akiyama. 2019. Five-Eyes intel group ties Japan, Germany, France to counter China in cyberspace. The Mainichi: Japan’s Daily Newspaper, February 4. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190204/p2a/00m/0na/001000c.

  53. Inhofe, Jim, Jack Reed, Jim Risch and Bob Menendez. 2019. A US fighter jet or a Russian missile system. Not both. New York Times, Opinion, April 9. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/opinion/turkey-united-states-f35conflict.html.

  54. Kimball, Anessa. 2019. Knocking NATO: Strategic and institutional challenges risk the future of Europe’s seven-decade long cold peace. University of Calgary, School of Public Policy Research Papers, 12(36): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v12i0.68129.

  55. Martill, Benjamin and Monika Sus.2018. Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(4): 846–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118796979.

  56. Wiarda, Howard. 2002. The politics of European enlargement: NATO, the EU, and the new US-European relationship. World Affairs, 164(4): 178–197. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672642.

  57. Dunn, David, and Mark Webber. 2016. The UK, the European Union and NATO: Brexit’s unintended consequences. Global Affairs, 2(5): 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2017.1294465.

  58. Kimball, ‘Managing risks.’

  59. Sandler, Global Collect Action, 33.

  60. Kimball, ‘Managing risks.’

  61. Dunn and Webber, ‘The UK, EU and NATO,’ 476.

  62. Smith, Martin and Graham Timmins. 2000. The EU, NATO and the extension of institutional order in Europe. World Affairs, 163(2): 80–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672601. Kimball, ‘Managing risks,’; Martill and Sus, ‘Post-Brexit,’ 857.

  63. Martill and Sus, ‘Post Brexit.’

  64. Hadfeld, Amelia. 2018. Britain against the world? Foreign and security policy in the ‘age of Brexit.’ In Brexit and beyond, ed. Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger, 174–182. London: University College London Press., 179. Martill and Sus, ‘Post-Brexit.’

  65. Hadfeld, ‘Britain against the world?’ 179.

  66. Brewster, Murray. 2019. Canada extending military missions in Ukraine, Iraq. CBC News. March 18. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-iraq-freeland-sajjan-russia-isis-1.5061159.

  67. Martill and Sus, ‘Post Brexit,’ 857.

  68. Dunn and Webber, ‘The UK, EU and NATO,’ 472.

  69. Martill and Sus, ‘Post Brexit,’; Dunn & Webber, ‘The UK, EU and NATO.’

  70. Kimball, ‘Knocking NATO.’

  71. Martill and Sus, ‘Post Brexit,’ 857.

  72. The author thanks a reviewer for this argument. Steven Erlander, ‘US revives concerns about European defense plans, Rattling NATO allies.’ New York Times, February 18, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/us/politics/nato-summit-trump.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Politics&fbclid=IwAR1mmglhk_q96lyDeQiQu54ZYkz9kwNnFBcukuNjOmDbNOA-yvlKxrI6TSc.

  73. Leeds, ‘Alliance reliability.’

  74. Anthony Cordesman with Max Molot. ‘NATO’s ‘Brain death’ burden sharing blunders: Focusing on the right investment, force strength, and readiness needs.’ November 11, 2019, Center for Strategic International Studies, Washington, DC. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/191121_NATO_Brain_Death_Approach_Burdensharin.pdf; Kimball, ‘Knocking NATO,’.

  75. Gould, Joe. 2019. ‘Trump says U.S. backs NATO 100%, after report of discussed withdrawal.’ Defence News, January 17. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/17/trump-says-us-backs-nato-100-after-report-he-discussed-withdrawal/.

  76. Ubriaco, Julian. 2017. NATO’s Baltic problem: How populism, Russia and the Baltic can fracture NATO. Harvard International Review, 38(1): 13. https://hir.harvard.edu/natos-baltic-problem/.

  77. Cordesman,’NATO’s ‘Brain death.’’.

  78. Wolf, Reinhard. 2017. Donald Trump’s status driven foreign policy. Survival, 59(5): 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2017.1375260.

  79. Kimball, ‘Managing risks.’

  80. Cordesman,’NATO’s ‘Brain death,’’; Kimball, ‘Knocking NATO.’

  81. Fryc, Mariusz. 2016. From Wales to Warsaw and beyond: NATO’s strategic adaptation to the Russian resurgence on Europe’s Eastern flank. Connections: Quarterly Journal, 15(4): 45–65. https://doi.org/10.11610/CONNECTIONS.15.4.03

  82. Fryc, ‘From Wales to Warsaw,’; Kuhn, Ulrich and Anna Péczeli. 2017. Russia, NATO and the INF Treaty. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(1): 66–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271591.

  83. Kimball, ‘Knocking NATO.’

  84. Borger, Julian. 2019. Donald Trump confirms US withdrawn from INF nuclear treaty. The Guardian, February 1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/01/inf-donald-trump-confirms-us-withdrawal-nuclear-treaty.

  85. Kimball, ‘Knocking NATO,’ 15–16.

  86. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  87. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  88. Chow, Dan, Ian Sheldon and William McGuire. 2018. How the US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership benefits China. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Public Affairs, 4(1): 37–80. https://aede.osu.edu/sites/aede/files/imce/images/How%20the%20United%20States%20Withdrawal%20from%20the%20Trans-Pacific%20Partnersh.pdf

  89. Kavanagh, ‘US security-related agreements.’

  90. Kimball, ‘Examining informal DSA.’ Kimball has a Canadian DSA archive under development including over 100 agreements with countries other than the US for study. Canadian DSA build from the models it co-developed with the US since the NORAD command. Kimball, ‘Future uncertainty, strategic defense.’

  91. Palmer, Glenn, Vito D’Orazio, Michael Kenwick, and Roseanne McManus. 2020. Updating the militarized interstate dispute data: A response to Gibler, Miller, and Little. International Studies Quarterly, 64(2): 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz045.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada

    Anessa L. Kimball

Authors
  1. Anessa L. Kimball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anessa L. Kimball.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Number

Appendix 1: Number

figure a

Source: Correlates of War, Militarized Interstate Dispute dataset, v. 4.3Footnote 91

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kimball, A.L. Deliberative institutional design and US defence and security agreements: comparing Canadian agreements to those with partners and competitors. J Transatl Stud 20, 230–250 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-022-00098-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-022-00098-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation