Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLee, Haneol
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-02
dc.date.available2019-07-02
dc.date.issued2019-01-31
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/20666
dc.description.abstractExploring the issue of peacetime capability-building activities, this thesis examines the question of why a military alliance is able to implement the activities effectively and acquire needed capability at some times, but cannot do so at other times. Although policy-makers of allied countries have striven to figure out ways to improve overall capability of their alliance, existing efforts in academia have yet to provide a systematic approach to understand military effectiveness of capability-building activities. Some scholars in the Alliance Effectiveness literature, paying great attention to the effect of external threat, have been shackled to the capability-aggregation assumption. Others in the literature challenge the tendency of overrating external threats, and endeavour to assess effects of internal threat, interests, norms and institutions on allies’ behaviours (i.e. such issues as alliance cohesion and reliability). Interested in explaining combat outcome, academics in the Military Effectiveness literature have typically focused on regime type, unit-level social factors (e.g. unit cohesion, leadership, or morale), organizational factors, and sources of fighting power. This literature touches on allies’ capability-building activities, but reveals their limited contribution to this thesis. Firstly, the literature is inclined to a wartime-oriented approach. Secondly, their discussions do not weave capability-building activities and military alliances together. Thirdly, the effectiveness with regard to designing and implementing capability-building activities remains unexplored and has not been a subject through which a theoretical framework has been developed. Building on studies of burden-sharing in military alliances, this thesis maintains that smaller allies need to take more roles in the processes of capability-building activities. In general, smaller allies are dependent on their larger allies vis-à-vis military capability, meaning that the latter helps the former in terms of a capability-building activity. However, since the dependence could increase the larger ally’s concern about a smaller ally’s free-riding, the burden-sharing is conducive to maintaining the larger ally’s commitment to the capability-building activity. Moreover, such burden-sharing means that the smaller ally could proactively participate in the activity by contemplating its capability needs. In light of this, this thesis argues that, as to the question at the start of this abstract, domestic dynamics of smaller allies matter. In other words, although allies agree on ends and means of a capability-building activity, verified and solidified via an international contract, the activity could be effective or ineffective, because of dynamics internal to smaller allies. This thesis puts forward two independent variables on the domestic dynamics. Firstly, preference alignment between civilian and military leaders affects military effectiveness of capability-building activities. As agency theory suggests, if their preferences are diverged, military leaders shirk their responsibility to their chief executive and their civilian agents. As a consequence, a policy drift, a delay, ensues. Under the condition of preference cleavage, one does not see progress in the process of a capability-building activity. Secondly, military effectiveness could increase with successful civil–military coordination. If a chief executive capitalizes on monitoring measures under their authority such as appointment, support of governing party and mid-course inspections, military effectiveness rises. Moreover, civilian leaders’ efforts to promote consultations with military leaders (e.g. by conducting briefings and meetings, and organizing consultation apparatuses) greatly contribute to military effectiveness. This process, in conjunction with the monitoring measure, could facilitate exchange of relevant information, and result in more concrete and feasible guidelines from the civilian leaders. The benefits of civil–military coordination notwithstanding, monitoring and consultation measures cause costs. Monitoring means newly appointed officials may need time, budget and human resources to catch up with specifics of capability-building activities. Likewise, briefings, meetings and consultative apparatuses require additional resources. This theory was tested with the case of the Republic of Korea (ROK)–US alliance. Well known for its degree of integration, the ROK–US alliance has not been questioned in terms of military effectiveness by academics and policy analysts. Thus, by selecting the ROK–US alliance, this thesis is able to show that such a highly integrated alliance could experience severe ineffectiveness. Therefore, this thesis intends to increase external validity of the aforementioned theory of civil-military relations. Specific tasks carried out to explore causal impact of preference alignment and civil–military coordination are as follows: categorizing capability-building activities of the ROK–US alliance, devising indicators of military effectiveness, and explaining how the impact transforms into military effectiveness. Proposing three categories of capability-building activities (procurement, deployment and command structure reform), this thesis develops effectiveness indicators of cost-sharing, training/exercises, technology transfer, contact points, supply of parts, timeliness and design adequacy. The case studies include fighter jet procurement projects, the wartime operational control (OPCON) transfer, and the Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) deployment of the ROK–US alliance. The THAAD and the OPCON are the sole cases of deployment and command structure reform, and the fighter jet projects (a.k.a. Korea Fighter Project (KFP) and FX-I) are one of the most large-scale procurement activities between the ROK and the US. Through the case studies, this thesis confirmed that variations in military effectiveness of the case studies were fully explained with preference alignment and civil–military coordination.en_AU
dc.publisherUniversity of Sydneyen_AU
dc.publisherThe Faculty of Arts and Social Sciencesen_AU
dc.publisherSchool of Social and Political Sciencesen_AU
dc.publisherDepartment of Government and International Relationsen_AU
dc.rightsThe author retains copyright of this thesis. It may only be used for the purposes of research and study. It must not be used for any other purposes and may not be transmitted or shared with others without prior permission.en_AU
dc.subjectcivil-military relationsen_AU
dc.subjectallianceen_AU
dc.subjectmilitary effectivenessen_AU
dc.subjectcapability-building activityen_AU
dc.titleCivil-Military Relations and the Effectiveness of Military Alliances in International Security Preference Alignment, Coordination and Capability-Building Activities of the Republic of Korea-United States Allianceen_AU
dc.typePhD Doctorateen_AU
dc.type.pubtypeDoctor of Philosophy Ph.D.en_AU
dc.description.disclaimerAccess is restricted to staff and students of the University of Sydney . UniKey credentials are required. Non university access may be obtained by visiting the University of Sydney Library.en_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.