PUBLICATIONS

“Trade Disputes and Non-State Actors : New Institutional Developments and the Privatization of Commercial diplomacy “ 2006 Vol 29, no 4, World Economy.

Abstract

Critical aspects of commercial diplomacy are undergoing a gradual process of privatization in both the United States and the European Union. We examine the new and evolving institutional arrangements which permit private groups (predominantly industry associations and firms) to petition for the initiation of trade disputes, propose agenda items for multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and even propose and conduct negotiations on regulatory reform outside the customary state-to-state channels. These include the United States' Section 301, the European Union's Trade Barriers Regulation, formal and informal consultation processes surrounding WTO negotiations, and the private sector Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue. There are several reasons for this undertaking,

Yet these institutional innovations are not neutral in the domestic-level competition over protection and free trade; they empower exporters alone, and not all equally. While reshaping the international politics of trade policy, the move towards privatizing commercial diplomacy raises questions about states' allocation of influence among competing interest groups, industries, and social classes. We examine these institutional developments, focusing on their origins, their pattern of use by broad industry classification, transatlantic comparisons concerning their implementation, and issues of representation and sustainability.

“Sweden” book chapter in The European Union and Member States (eds)Eleanor Zeff and Ellen Pirro, June 2006.

Abstract

This chapter looks at how Swedish policy has been affected by and also EU integration. It includes a general overview of developments since joinig, with particular emphasis on the last few years. Policy areas discussed include social and economic policy, immigration and security policy. Included is a presentation of the various institutional arrangements erected to deal with EU policy areas, and their role in implementing EU policy domestically. The compliance rate, the extent to which EU legislation has been enforced, is also examined in this context. A section is devoted to a closer examination of Sweden’s Foreign and Security Policies, areas where Swedish policy makers originally did not anticipate having to change national policy, but where significant reforms have been necessitated by the rapid development of the EU’s common foreign security and defense policy since 1999.

Three entries in the American Homeland Security Encyclopedia, June 2006

Entries: “Nato and international Law”

“Great Britain Homeland Security”

“International Institute for Strategic Studies”

“Traditions, Identity and Security: the Legacy of Neutrality in Finnish and Swedish Security Policies in Light of European Integration.” European Integration online Papers (peer reviewed) (2004) vol. 8, no 6

Abstract

The militarily non-allied members of the European Union, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, have undergone rapid changes in security policies since 1999. Looking at two states, Finland and Sweden, this paper traces states’ contemporary responses to the rapid development of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) to their historical experiences with different types of neutrality. It is argued that by looking at the legacies of different types of neutrality on identity and domestic rules, traditions, norms, and values, we can better explain how change occurred, and why states have pursued slightly different paths. This enhances our understanding broadly of the role of domestic institutions in accounting for policy variation in multilateral regional integration, and particularly in the EU. In the process, this study also addresses a question recently raised by other scholars: the role of neutrality in Europe.

“Traditions, Identity and Security: European Defense and Neutral States” Maxwell Review. vol. 11, Spring 2004.

Abstract

The neutral members of the European Union (EU), Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, have undergone rapid changes in security policies since 1999. This paper argues that by looking at the domestic rules, norms and values as institutionalized under different types of neutrality (pragmatic and ideological), and their legacies on identity and domestic institutions and decision-making, we can better explain how change occurred and why states have pursued different paths in doing so. This enhances our understanding broadly of the role of domestic institutions (prevailing norms, behavior and decision making structures) in accounting for policy variation in multilateral regional integration in general, and the EU in particular.

Papers under review:

“Privatizing Commercial Diplomacy: Institutional Innovation at the Domestic-International Frontier” with Richard Sherman, under review with Journal of Economics and Politics in Europe as of January 2006

A revised and expanded version on the material included in the article in the World Econ my (see above)

“(Re-)Examining the Electoral College: A Comparative Assessment”

With Professor Rogan Kersh, Syracuse University Under Review with Electoral Studies as of March 2006.

Abstract

The role of the electoral college in U.S. presidential
elections has been a source of controversy since the Constitutional
Convention, and a particularly contentious question since the
introduction of universal suffrage. Notwithstanding occasional political
disputes (such as those in the wake of the 2000 election) and proposed
congressional reforms, the issue has long remained largely an "academic"
(conjectural, speculative) debate. To better assess the U.S. case, a
comparative case would be optimal; this, we argue, can be found in
Finland. This stable democracy modeled its 1917 Constitution on the
U.S. Constitution, with an electoral college and a separation of powers
among three branches of government

As it happens, the Finnish electoral college was abolished in 1988,
replaced by direct popular election of the executive. A look at Finnish
elections before and after 1988 thus provides valuable empirical
insights on questions long posed by scholars in the U.S., such as the
electoral college's impact on campaign strategies, voter turnout, media
focus, executive legitimacy, civic engagement in elections, and so
forth. Based on the Finnish case we evaluate the hypotheses

presented by American scholars. Using some formal theory we also asses

the strengths and weaknesses of proposed alternatives to the current U.S. system of electing presidents.

Current Projects

Eliasson, J. (2006) “EU Security and defense, the military structure” in Weber, J.,

Eliasson, J. and Col. Pierce, J. (eds) Handbook on Military Administration Taylor & Francis LLC

Abstract

This chapter outlines and explains the EU’s security strategy and military structures. The book, where I am co-editor, is meant to serve in introductory courses at the War College.

“International Law and a Response to Goetschel: How We Wrote the Obituary on Neutrality”

Abstract

Two concurrent and related developments, European integration and the events of 9/11, have dramatically altered our perceptions of national security and defense, but also the means required to address new concerns emanating from an increasingly interrelated world. Compounded, these factors have profound implications for states’ security political strategies.

In response to the changing international order, and Goetschel’s work questioning neutrality, this paper shows how neutrality, prevalent in Europe in particular, is now obsolete, ceasing to be a viable option in response to regional or international conflicts.

The first two sections briefly discuss international law as it applies to neutrality and the historical and contemporary applications of neutrality, including their related (political and legal) problems. The third section looks at recent international conventions, declarations and agreements as they pertain to neutrality, along with empirical examples from six countries and two recent conflicts (Kosovo and Iraq). The final section draws this together, summarizing how and why neutrality now is obsolete, while also positing some thoughts on the policy implications of such developments.

Opinion Pieces

“Trade and Aid go Hand in Hand” Polscithinking, Maxwell School, Syracuse University Spring 2005

“A militarily stronger EU is conducive to world peace” (op-ed)Stokholms Fria Tidning, September 2002.

“EU more open than any member state” (op-ed)Stokholms Fria Tidning, October 2002

“Foreign aid and development programs do not diminish the need for improved military capabilities in the EU” (op-ed) Stokholms Fria Tidning, November 2002

“The European Security and Defense Policy Process and Non-Allied Members Finland and Sweden” Working paper Maxwell EU Center, vol.1, August 2002.

"Radical Reprioritizations Needed"(op-ed, original in Swedish) Svenska Dagbladet August 4, 1999.

"No Model for Swedish Welfare; But we Can Learn From Some Parts of the US Economic System" (op-ed, original in Swedish) Arbetet

“The European Security and Defense Policy Process and Non-Allied Members”

Working paper no.2 Maxwell School European Union Center, Syracuse University

Dissertation

European Union Defense Integration and the Effects on Militarily Non-Allied Member States: The Cases of Finland and Sweden

PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University, September 2004

Abstract

This study addresses a puzzle which has received little scholarly attention. The question is why militarily non-allied European Union members (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden) have undergone significant changes in their foreign and defense policies; accepting policies and engaging in activities previously deemed incompatible with their official security policy doctrines. While dominant explanations cite geopolitical changes and NATO’s role in crisis management, both of which have undeniably and dramatically altered the security political domain in post-Cold War Europe, it is argued that EU defense integration and EU institutions have been most influential.

The study shows evidence of the influence of EU membership, and how the development of its security and defense dimension extensively contributed to security and defense reforms in Finland and Sweden, constituting necessary explanatory components lacking in dominant explanations. It was shown that absent the European Security and Defense Policy process, domestic reforms and policy changes would never have occurred, been significantly delayed, or postponed indefinitely. A control case, Switzerland, is also included. If arguments of geopolitical changes or NATO expansion were accurate we should find similar changes in this non-EU neutral state with similar socio-economic standards. This is not the case.

The second part of the puzzle is why these non-allied states have moved away from neutrality in different ways in response to the same developments at the EU level? An explanation for such differences can be found by looking at the domestic settings, the legacy of different types of neutrality and their effects on decision making structures, norms, national identity, and peoples’ role-perceptions of the state. Focusing on two non-allied states with different types of neutrality Finland (primarily pragmatic), and Sweden (ideological) the legacies of different neutrality is evident in the ease and extent to which Finland has adapted to a European defense dimension, vis-à-vis Swedish reluctant acquiescence in many areas, less expansive ties to NATO, and continued skepticism of Swedish policy as espoused by other members’ officials.

CONFERENCE PAPERS

“The ESDP Process and Security Policies in Finland and Sweden” Northeast Political Science Association/International Studies Association Northeast annual meeting Providence, RI. November 7-9, 2002.

“The European Security and Defense Policy Process and Non-Allied Members” International Studies Association Conference, New Orleans. March 24-27, 2002.

“European Security and Defense Integration: the Affect on Non-Allied Members Finland and Sweden.” ISA/Northeast Political Science Association, Philadelphia. November 8-10, 2001.

"Neutral by Choice, Aligned by Default? Sweden, Ireland and EU Defense Integration" North Eastern American Political Science Association, Albany. November 11, 2000.

"Ireland and Sweden in a Changing EU: a Comparison" American Conference for Irish Studies, New York. October 27, 2000.

"A Changing European Union: Sweden, the ESDI and NATO membership" ESCA Conference, Quebec City. August 1, 2000.

"Neutral Countries in a Changing European Union: Sweden, Finland, the European Security and Defense Initiative and NATO membership" 54^th New York State Political Science Association Conference. April 14-15, 2000.

“Neutral Countries and European Defense: Sweden and Finland” National Security Series, Syracuse University. October 26, 1999.

"From the European Perspective: The Benefits of Stronger European Military Capabilities within the Transatlantic Alliance" European Studies Conference University of Nebraska, Omaha. October 14-16, 1999.

Workshop Participation:

Confronting problems in the Classroom Department of political; Science, Syracuse University, October 8 2004.

Immigration in the United States March 11, 2003, Syracuse University

EU Integration, Enlargement, Social Policy, and Security and Defense Policy. April 3-6, 2003. Fredonia, New York.

American and European Federalism. Syracuse University. Sponsored by the Campbell Institute, Global Affairs Institute and the European Union Center.

Presentation of research on Transatlantic dispute mechanism, G-Perc, Syracuse University, March 19,2003.

“Dealing with Problems in the Classroom: TA-Professor work relations”

Syracuse University, November 11, 2002.