Country Report: Australia; A New Frontline State?

In a context of rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, Australia's defense policy has become increasingly assertive. Given the political and technological transformation underway, policymakers consider geography no longer to be a sufficient buffer for their country's security. They now consider Australia a 'frontline' state, should there be a conflict in the Indo-Pacific. For Germany and for Europe - key US allies and partners in the region - it is important to gain a better understanding of the strategic dynamics driving Australia’s defense decision-making processes as well as the implementation of those decisions

Enjeux stratégiques et économiques des politiques d’exportation d’armement:Une comparaison franco-américaine

Dans un marché de l’armement qui se mondialise, marqué par une forte compétition et d’importantes contraintes budgétaires, les gouvernements encouragent les exportations militaires afin de soutenir leurs industries de défense. Toutefois, les politiques d’exportation d’armes diffèrent considérablement d’un État à l’autre, tant en ce qui concerne les technologies transférées que les pays destinataires. Cet article propose un schéma explicatif et une typologie articulant facteurs internationaux et nationaux afin d’appréhender les variations dans les politiques d’exportation d’armement. Il s’agit de montrer que le poids relatif des considérations stratégiques et économiques dans l’élaboration des politiques d’exportation d’armes dépend, sur le plan international, du positionnement de l’État dans la hiérarchie mondiale des producteurs d’armement et, sur le plan national, du degré de dépendance à l’exportation de son industrie de défense. Cette typologie est ensuite testée à travers une comparaison des politiques américaine et française d’exportation d’armement, à partir d’entretiens réalisés à Washington D.C. et à Paris et de câbles diplomatiques fuités par Wikileaks. Cet article contribue ainsi d’un point de vue tant théorique qu’empirique à l’étude d’un domaine sous-exploré de l’action extérieure des États, à la frontière entre enjeux stratégiques et économiques, et des enchevêtrements entre dimensions internes et externes de l’action publique œuvrant ainsi au rapprochement entre relations internationales et analyse comparée des politiques publiques.Strategic and Economic Considerations in Arms Transfer Policies. A US-France ComparisonIn a globalizing arms market, characterized by intense competition and significant budgetary constraints, governments encourage military exports to support their defense industry. However, arms export policies differ considerably from one state to another, both in terms of the technologies transferred and of recipient countries. The article proposes a theoretical framework and a typology that combines domestic and international factors in explaining the variations of arms export policies among states. It seeks to show that the strategic and economic considerations at play in the making of arms export policies depend on a state’s position in the international hierarchy of arms producers and, at the domestic level, on the degree of export dependence of a state’s defense industry. The typology is then tested through a comparison of French and American arms export policies, based on interviews in Paris and Washington D.C. and on diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks. This article therefore aims to contribute both theoretically and empirically to an under-explored dimension of states’ external actions, at the frontier between strategic and economic interests, and to the understanding of the intertwining of external and internal dimensions of public policies, thereby also helping to bridge the study of international relations and comparative public policy analysis

Enabling a More Externally Focused and Operational PLA – 2020 PLA Conference Papers

Although the People’s Liberation Army is not yet a global expeditionary force on par with the US military, the former has nevertheless significantly expanded its ability to operate abroad. Through enhanced technological capabilities, robust relationships with foreign militaries, increased access to overseas military bases and dual-use facilities, and the implementation of major structural reforms, the People’s Liberation Army has built a more integrated joint force capable of conducting a wider and more complex array of missions. This volume advances the understanding of the People’s Liberation Army’s capability to conduct overseas missions by examining China’s military relations with Europe, Africa, and Latin America; the country’s military activities in the Indian Ocean, polar regions, and Pacific Island countries; and the emerging roles of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force and the Joint Logistic Support Force. This volume finds the People’s Liberation Army is engaged in a wide range of activities throughout the world, including port calls, joint exercises, seminars, and personnel exchanges. China sells weapons to some parts of the world and seeks to acquire military and dual-use technology from others. In addition, the People’s Liberation Army seeks to increase its capability to operate in parts of the world, such as the Indian Ocean, Pacific Island countries, and polar regions, where the organization has only had a minimal presence in the past.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1947/thumbnail.jp

Réguler le commerce des armes par le Parlement et l’opinion publique:Comparaison du contrôle des exportations d’armement en Allemagne, France, Royaume-Uni et Suède

En cherchant à expliquer pourquoi les exportations d’armement sont fortement régulées par certains États européens et plus faiblement par d’autres, cet article défend l’idée d’une absence d’européanisation du contrôle des exportations d’armement, et que ni la relation État-industrie ni l’implication des acteurs exécutifs n’expliquent ces variations. Deux hypothèses alternatives sont proposées : la position du Parlement dans le processus de décision du contrôle des ventes d’armes et la saillance de l’enjeu des ventes d’armes auprès de l’opinion publique.Regulating the arms trade by the Parliament and public opinion. A comparison of arms export controls in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden.In seeking to explain why some European states strongly regulate arms exports but others weakly, this article argues that there is no Europeanization of arms export controls, and that neither the state-industry relationship nor the involvement of executive actors explain these variations. Two alternative hypotheses matter: the position of Parliament in the arms export control decision-making process, and the salience of the arms sales issue in the view of public opinion.Européanisation, économie politique et acteurs gouvernementaux : réfutation des variables dominantes - L’Union européenne sans l’européanisation - L’insuffisante explication de l’école de la variété des capitalismes - Les décideurs gouvernementaux, une constante Le Parlement et l’opinion publique : des acteurs sous-estimés ? La position décisionnelle de l’institution parlementaire - L’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat - La Chambre des Communes et la Chambre des Lords - Le Bundestag - Le Riksdag La saillance de l’enjeu des ventes d’armes dans l’opinion publique - France - Royaume-Uni - Allemagne - Suède Conclusion</strong

Réguler le commerce des armes par le Parlement et l’opinion publique: Comparaison du contrôle des exportations d’armement en Allemagne, France, Royaume-Uni et Suède

Regulating the arms trade by the Parliament and public opinion. A comparison of arms export controls in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden.In seeking to explain why some European states strongly regulate arms exports but others weakly, this article argues that there is no Europeanization of arms export controls, and that neither the state-industry relationship nor the involvement of executive actors explain these variations. Two alternative hypotheses matter: the position of Parliament in the arms export control decision-making process, and the salience of the arms sales issue in the view of public opinion.En cherchant à expliquer pourquoi les exportations d’armement sont fortement régulées par certains États européens et plus faiblement par d’autres, cet article défend l’idée d’une absence d’européanisation du contrôle des exportations d’armement, et que ni la relation État-industrie ni l’implication des acteurs exécutifs n’expliquent ces variations. Deux hypothèses alternatives sont proposées : la position du Parlement dans le processus de décision du contrôle des ventes d’armes et la saillance de l’enjeu des ventes d’armes auprès de l’opinion publique

Arming China:Major powers’ arms transfers to the People’s Republic of China

First published online: 24 February 2017The rise of China has been fuelled by a massive military modernisation programme relying, in large part, on the acquisition of foreign military equipment. The question of how the world’s major powers define their arms transfer policies towards China is therefore crucially important. This article makes two original contributions. First, drawing on neoclassical realism, it proposes an explanatory framework integrating international and domestic factors to explain variations in major powers’ arms transfers. Second, based on a large body of elite interviews and diplomatic cables, it offers the first comprehensive comparison of American, British, French and Russian arms transfer policies towards China since the end of the Cold War

Arming China: Major powers’ arms transfers to the People’s Republic of China

The rise of China has been fuelled by a massive military modernisation programme relying, in large part, on the acquisition of foreign military equipment. The question of how the world’s major powers define their arms transfer policies towards China is therefore crucially important. This article makes two original contributions. First, drawing on neoclassical realism, it proposes an explanatory framework integrating international and domestic factors to explain variations in major powers’ arms transfers. Second, based on a large body of elite interviews and diplomatic cables, it offers the first comprehensive comparison of American, British, French and Russian arms transfer policies towards China since the end of the Cold War