Skip to main content
Log in

Germany's participation in the Kosovo war: Bringing agency back in

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1999, the Federal Republic of Germany participated in NATO's air campaign Operation Allied Force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was the first offensive combat mission in the history of the country. Most of the theoretically informed literature discusses the decision from a structural perspective (for example, role theory, strategic culture). In contrast, the personalities and idiosyncrasies of the individual decision-makers that took the decision have received little attention. This article takes up this neglect in the literature by applying one cognitive and one psychological agency-based approach of foreign policy decision-making to the case, namely analogical reasoning and prospect theory. The discussion suggests that particularly prospect theory has strong explanatory leverage to account for Germany's decision to go to war. On a more general level, the article lends support to the claim that not only structure but also agency matters in foreign policy decision-making. Indeed, even in a country such as Germany, whose foreign and security policy is regarded as highly circumscribed by structural constraints, individual decision-makers can and do make a difference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a general discussion of OAF see, for instance, Daalder and O’Hanlon (2000), Lambeth (2001), Kaufman (2002), Henriksen (2008), Hehir (2009), Lake (2009), Webber (2009).

  2. For a comparative application of several IR theories to the Kosovo conflict, see Sterling-Folker (2006).

  3. The role of the political environment was not included in the original formulation of prospect theory (for example, Kahnemann and Tversky, 1979). Rather, the impact of the political context on decision-makers’ assessment of gains and losses was introduced when political scientists sought to operationalise the laboratory results of Kahnemann and Tversky in political settings (see, for instance, Farnham, 2004; Taliaferro, 2004). I thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point.

  4. The activation order, which puts national forces that are designated for a mission under the command of the NATO commander responsible and allows him to begin operations at a time and under conditions as specified by the North Atlantic Council, was passed by the North Atlantic Council on 13 October 1998 and allowed for limited air strikes and a phased air campaign.

  5. Since prospect theory cannot properly accommodate group decision-making (McDermott, 2004, pp. 305–306; Boettcher, 2004), the latter's application to the head of government seems to be the ‘next best thing’ to do when dealing with parliamentary systems, such as the German one. Indeed, it is hardly imaginable that a decision to deploy armed forces would be taken against the will of the head of government.

  6. However, Schröder (2007, p. 117), Fischer (2007, p. 152) and Scharping (2001, pp. 52, 54) all doubt that Lafontaine's departure had anything to do with the handling of the Kosovo conflict; Schröder even dismisses this justification as ‘legend’.

References

  • Associated Press. (1998) Deutsche Soldaten für Nato-Schlag gegen Belgrad bereit. 16 October.

  • Associated Press. (1999) Kabinett zu Sondersitzung wegen Kosovo zusammengekommen. 22 March.

  • Baumann, R. and Hellmann, G. (2001) Germany and the use of military force: ‘Total war’, the ‘culture of restraint’ and the quest for normality. German Politics 10 (1): 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher, W.A. (2004) The prospects for prospect theory: An empirical evaluation of international relations applications of framing and loss aversion. Political Psychology 25 (3): 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsnaes, W. (2002) Foreign policy. In: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, pp. 331–349.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daalder, I.H. and O'Hanlon, M.E. (2000) Winning Ugly. NATO's War to Save Kosovo. Washington DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. (2006) Germany, Pacifism and Peace Enforcement. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag. (1998a) Plenarprotokoll 13/248. Stenographischer Bericht. 248. Sitzung, 16 October.

  • Deutscher Bundestag. (1998b) Antrag der Bundesregierung: Deutsche Beteiligung an den von der NATO geplanten begrenzten und in Phasen durchzuführenden Luftoperationen zur Abwendung einer humanitären Katastrophe im Kosovo-Konflikt. Drucksache 13/11469, 12 October.

  • Die Welt. (1999) Nato vertagt Entscheidung über Kosovo. 22 March.

  • Farnham, B. (2004) Impact of the political context on foreign policy decision-making. Political Psychology 25 (3): 441–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. (2007) Die rot-grünen Jahre. Deutsche Außenpolitik vom Kosovo bis zum 11. September. Köln, Germany: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flottau, R. and Schleicher, R. (1999) Marsch in die Sackgasse. Der Spiegel, 22 March: 196–198.

  • Focus. (1998) Bomben und Bodentruppen. 12 October: 11.

  • Focus. (1999) Zweites Bosnien verhindern. 25 January: 20–24.

  • Friedrich, R. (2005) Die deutsche Außenpolitik im Kosovo-Konflikt. Wiesbaden, Germany: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacke, C. (2003) Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Von Konrad Adenauer bis Gerhard Schröder. Berlin, Germany: Ullstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hehir, A. (2009) NATO's ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo: Legal precedent or aberration. Journal of Human Rights 8 (3): 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2008) Inflexible response: Diplomacy, airpower and the Kosovo crisis, 1998-1999. Journal of Strategic Studies 31 (6): 825–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, G. (1999) Berlin und der Krieg. Die Zeit, 22 April, http://www.zeit.de/1999/17/199917.berliner_republi.xml, accessed 14 January 2010.

  • Houghton, D.P. (1996) The role of analogical reasoning in novel foreign-policy situations. British Journal of Political Science 26 (4): 523–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, D.P. (1998) Historical analogies and the cognitive dimension of domestic policymaking. Political Psychology 19 (2): 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, D.P. (2001) US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde-Price, A. (2001) Germany and the Kosovo war: Still a civilian power? German Politics 10 (1): 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. (2003) Foreign policy analysis in the twenty-first century: Back to comparison, forward to identity and ideas. International Studies Review 5 (2): 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J.P. (2002) NATO and the former Yugoslavia. Crisis, Conflict, and the Atlantic Alliance. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khong, Y.F. (1992) Analogies at War. Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decision of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, J. (2000) Deutschland und die Kosovo-Krise. In: K. Clewing and J. Reuter (eds.) Der Kosovo-Konflikt. Ursachen, Akteure, Verlauf. München, Germany: Landeszentrale für politische Bildungsarbeit, pp. 395–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafontaine, O. (1999) Das Herz schlägt links. München, Germany: Econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.R. (2009) The limits of coercive airpower. NATO's ‘victory’ in Kosovo revisited. International Security 34 (1): 83–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambeth, B.S. (2001) NATO's Air War for Kosovo. A Strategic and Operational Assessment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J.S. (1992) An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology 13 (2): 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J.S. (1997) Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longhurst, K. (2004) Germany and the Use of Force. The Evolution of German Security Policy 1990-2003. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malici, A. (2006) German as Venutians: The culture of German foreign policy behavior. Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (1): 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maull, H.W. (2001) Germany's foreign policy, post-Kosovo: Still a ‘civilian power’? In: S. Harnisch and H.W. Maull (eds.) Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, pp. 106–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (1992) Prospect theory in international relations: The Iranian hostage rescue mission. Political Psychology 13 (2): 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (1998) Risk-taking in International Politics. Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (2004) Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology 25 (2): 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miskimmon, A. (2007) Germany and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. Between Europeanisation and National Adaptation. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miskimmon, A. (2009) Falling into line? Kosovo and the course of German foreign policy. International Affairs 85 (3): 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun, B.C. (2004) Partisan Interventions. European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharping, R. (1999) Europas Stimme in der Allianz. Die Zeit, 18 February, http://www.zeit.de/1999/08/199908.identitaet_.xml, accessed 14 January 2010.

  • Scharping, R. (2001) Wir dürfen nicht wegsehen. Der Kosovo-Krieg und Europa. München, Germany: Econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, G. (1998) Weil wir Deutschlands Kraft vertrauen… Regierungserklärung des Bundeskanzlers am 10. November 1998 vor dem Deutschen Bundestag in Bonn. Bulletin der Bundesregierung Nr. 74. Bonn: Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.

  • Schröder, G. (1999a) Rede von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder anlässlich der XXXV. Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik am 6. Februar 1999 in München. Bulletin der Bundesregierung Nr. 8. Bonn: Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.

  • Schröder, G. (1999b) Erklärung der Bundesregierung zur aktuellen Lage im Kosovo. Abgegeben von Bundeskanzler Schröder vor dem Deutschen Bundestag am 15. April 1999. Bulletin der Bundesregierung Nr. 16. Bonn: Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.

  • Schröder, G. (2007) Entscheidungen. Mein Leben in der Politik. Berlin, Germany: Ullstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel Online. (1999) Polizeiknüppel schützen Parteitag, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,22092,00.html, accessed 22 March 2009.

  • Sterling-Folker, J. (ed.) (2006) Making Sense of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern. (1999) Starker Mann, was nun? 18 March: 22.

  • Süskind, M.E. (2002) Machtwechsel und Regierungsjahre. In: B. Anda and R. Kleine (eds.) Gerhard Schröder. Eine BiographieMünchen. Germany: Ullstein, pp. 223–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taliaferro, J.W. (2004) Power politics and the balance of risk: Hypotheses on great power intervention in the periphery. Political Psychology 25 (2): 177–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TAZ. (1999) Kriegskredit für Fischer. 14 May: 1.

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vertzberger, Y.Y.I. (1990) The World in Their Minds. Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bredow, W. (2006) Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.F. (1998) On the representation of problems: An information-processing approach to foreign policy decision making. In: D.A. Sylvan and J.F. Voss (eds.) Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, M. (2009) The Kosovo war: A recapitulation. International Affairs 85 (3): 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weymouth, L. (1999) We have to win this. Newsweek, 19 April, http://www.newsweek.com/id/88058, accessed 18 March 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brummer, K. Germany's participation in the Kosovo war: Bringing agency back in. Acta Polit 47, 272–291 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.1

Keywords

Navigation