Definition, diagnosis, therapy: A civil-military critique
For more than two generations, civil–military relations has been an arena with very little autonomous theoretical development – if by theory we mean explanation based on tests of hypotheses. Since formative concepts were offered by Samuel Huntington, Morris Janowitz, and Samuel Finer, configurative descriptions and historical summaries have prevailed. While the role of “threat” has been examined, wider issues of national security competence have been explored, and some ideas such as that of a “civil army” have been introduced, we can count on the fingers of one hand the number of scholars who have written about civil–military relations qua theory. Yet, if we define conservaDefense & Security Analysis Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 157–170, 2002
A Unified Theory Of Civil-Military Relations
This article's thesis is that civil control of the military is managed and maintained through the sharing of responsibility for control between civilian leaders and military officers. Specifically, civil authorities are responsible and accountable for some aspects of control and military leaders are responsible and accountable for others. Although some responsibilities for control may merge, they are not fused. The relationship and arrangement of responsibilities are conditioned by a nationally evolved regime of principles, norms, rules, and expectations concerning civil-military relations. Although a regime may be stable for long periods, it can change as basic causal factors such as values, issues, interests, personalities, and threats change. Alterations of rules and decision-making procedures account for the dynamic nature of civil-military relations, while alterations of norms and principles account for conflict in civil-military relations. Regime differences between states account for the particular national character of civil-military relations, much as like-minded regimes account for cross-cultural similarities in civil-military relations.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.