Download

Download Full Text (233 KB)

Description

This Strategic Forum paper examines growing debates within NATO over the viability of the Alliance’s long-standing consensus rule for decisionmaking, particularly in light of enlargement and disagreements surrounding the Iraq War. The author analyzes how the consensus principle has shaped NATO’s political cohesion, operational planning, and crisis response, drawing on case studies including Kosovo, post–September 11 actions, and the February 2003 dispute over defensive planning for Turkey. While acknowledging frustrations with consensus procedures, the paper argues that the rule reflects NATO’s character as an alliance of sovereign states and remains central to its legitimacy and cohesion. It evaluates potential reforms—such as enhanced contingency planning authority, coalition-of-the-willing mechanisms within NATO, and modified voting procedures—and concludes that targeted procedural adjustments, rather than abandoning consensus, offer the most viable path forward.

Document Type

Policy Brief

Region(s)

Europe, United States, Iraq

Topic(s)

National Security, Defense Policy, NATO

Publication Date

8-2003

Publication

Strategic Forum

Publisher

National Defense University Press

City

Washington, DC

Keywords

NATO, NATO consensus rule, alliance decisionmaking, Iraq War, Kosovo, contingency planning, NATO enlargement, collective defense, coalition operations, alliance reform

NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule?

Share

COinS