4.2 Article

Supranational Self-Empowerment Through Bricolage: The Role of the European Commission in EU Security and Defence

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13564

关键词

bricolage; CSDP; EU foreign policy; European Commission; research and development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a fresh understanding of bricolage as a strategy for gradually enhancing supranational self-empowerment. It argues that the Commission has effectively strengthened its role in EU security and defence by utilizing various bricolage tools, leading to the establishment of the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Commission's Directorate-General Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS). The Commission has employed discursive bricolage to build communication and leverage existing EU financial and organizational resources to advance its interests. By adopting an incremental bricolage approach, the Commission has managed to address member states' sovereignty concerns and encourage deeper integration.
This article provides a novel conceptualization of bricolage as a strategy for incremental supranational self-empowerment. It argues that the cumulative effects of different bricolage tools employed by the Commission have been central for progressively strengthening its role in EU security and defence, which culminated in the establishment of the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Commission's Directorate-General Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS). Building communication upon communication, the Commission used discursive bricolage to set the conditions for employing existing EU financial and organizational resources to advance its interests. Specifically, with its incremental bricolage approach, the Commission has managed to mitigate sovereignty concerns of member states, progressively nudging them towards deeper integration. Overall, our article shows how the Commission has strengthened its influence through the cumulative bricolage tools even in the intergovernmental domains of security and defence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据