US-European Security Relations and the Question of a ‘New Isolationism’ - JPM884
|
|
|
||
|
This is a guest course taught by Prof. David Haglund from Queen's University in Kingston, Canada.
In early January 2025 the New York Post featured a clever front-page depiction of the importance of the Western Hemisphere’s place in the second Trump administration’s “grand strategy.” It labelled the latter, the “Donroe Doctrine.” The label has stuck, establishing a link – in a way that the president has taken to be flattering – between his administration’s strategic vision and that of a famous predecessor. That predecessor, of course, was America’s fifth president, James Monroe. And his message to Congress on 2 December 1823 is remembered to this day as the “Monroe Doctrine,” which laid down two long-lasting guideposts for America’s security relations with Europe. The first was that there should be no further European colonization in the Western hemisphere. The second was that the Western hemisphere should be preserved henceforth as a safe haven for a relatively new dispensation of statecraft: ideological republicanism (contrasted with the anti-democratic and monarchical regimes of most European countries at the time). For an extremely long period of time, the Monroe Doctrine could routinely be taken as the very surrogate for American grand strategy, with the latter itself being held synonymous with “isolationism.” The basic idea of the doctrine could be boiled to a simple a desire for reciprocated non-intervention: Europe should stay out of “America’s” hemisphere (aka the “New World”), and the US for its part would oblige by not interfering in the affairs of Europe (aka the “Old World”). During the first half of the twentieth century, a revolution took place in American grand strategy, one that saw the United States increasingly becoming a fixture in the security and defense arrangements of the Old Continent. By the end of the Second World War, it was widely assumed that as Europe had now shown itself to be a “vital” American interest, any return to isolationism (interpreted as the refusal to have a presence in the European balance of power) had become a logical impossibility. From every administration beginning with that of the country’s 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and extending through that of its 46th president, Joseph R. Biden, it could be assumed that America’s commitment to both NATO and the idea of a transatlantic (i.e., US-European) security and defense bonding was a solid one (even during Trump’s first administration he had been known to proclaim that NATO had once again “become great” – and that he had made it so). With the second Trump administration, the assumption of transatlantic security and defense interdependence is getting increasingly into question. And the Donroe Doctrine ratifies more than anything else the current state of disquiet. Accordingly, in this week-long course, we will concentrate upon five key issues on today’s transatlantic policy agenda. Those issues are listed below, in the section titled “topics covered.” But prior to addressing them, we need to address a few administrative matters, appertaining to course delivery, course requirements, evaluation of student performance, and course rules. Last update: Karásek Tomáš, PhDr. JUDr., Ph.D. (10.02.2026)
|
|
||
|
Viz výše soubor se sylabem kurzu / See the file containing the course syllabus above. Last update: Karásek Tomáš, PhDr. JUDr., Ph.D. (20.01.2026)
|
|
||
|
The course will consist of five 80-minute teaching sessions, combining lectures with class discussion. There are no required readings, given the short duration of the course. There will, however, be a sixth 80-minute session, dedicated to the in-class final exam. class attendance (30 %) final written exam (in-class) (70 %) Last update: Karásek Tomáš, PhDr. JUDr., Ph.D. (10.02.2026)
|
|
||
|
The course will consist of five 80-minute teaching sessions, which will take the form of what I like to call “hot-seat” discussions. Each student will be provided a chance to be an introducer of one of the debated topics during the week. The "introducer" is expected to be prepared to answer two or three questions asked on the topic by the course convenor. Last update: Karásek Tomáš, PhDr. JUDr., Ph.D. (20.01.2026)
|
|
||
|
Seminar 1 (13 April, 18H30 to 19H50): Greenland and the “crise du jour” Room C520
Seminar 2 (14 April, 18H30 to 19H50): “Monroeism,” Isolationism, and US-European Relations Room B330
Seminar 3 (15 April, 18H30 to 19H50): From “Offshore Balancing” to Transatlantic Alliance Room B330
Seminar 4 (16 April, 18H30 to 19H50): NATO Enlargement and the Return of the “Russian Problem” Room C520
Seminar 5 (17 April, 15H30 to 16H50): NATO’s Future in an Age of (Apparent) Populism and European “Autonomy” Room B316
** Seminar 6 (17 April, 17H00 to 18H20): Writing in class of final exam** Room B316 Last update: Karásek Tomáš, PhDr. JUDr., Ph.D. (10.02.2026)
|