a pproaches to e uropean s ecurity pi5501 lecture 2
TRANSCRIPT
APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN SECURITYPI5501 Lecture 2
APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN SECURITY
Realism Neo-realism Liberalism/Utopianism Neo-liberalism Social Constructivism Post Structuralism
APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN SECURITY
What is security?
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Realism (classical) Pessimism about human nature and international
system Anarchy Self-help Major concern: survival and security Accumulation of power Focus is on the state/nation – Why? (Hobbes)
Treaty of Westphalia (1648)
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Use in the Cold War Role and application of military power to achieve
political objectives Geopolitics and territory Conventional and strategic military power (Nuclear) deterrence Alliances Bi-polar system and peace
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Clausewitz On War (1832) War: a controlled, rational, instrumental, political
and legitimate act. Norman Angell The Great Illusion (1914)
Inverse relationship between the cost of war and its frequency
War: Causes of (particular) wars (19th C), or Causes of War (phenomenon) (K. Waltz)
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Basic Tenants of Neo-Realism Anarchic system States are primary actors States are unitary actors States are power seeking States are rational actors
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Kenneth Waltz Man, the State and War (1959) 3 “Images” (or causes)
1. Human Behaviour2. Internal Structures of the State3. International Anarchy
War: functional to system’s preservation Balance of power mechanism Conflict-resolution mechanism
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Balance of Power and Deterrence What is deterrence? Nuclear Deterrence in the Cold War MAD-based stability
based on rationality (?) Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold War
Greater deterrence? Greater instability and danger?
REALISM AND STRATEGIC THEORY
Dominance of (Neo)realism in IR during Cold War: International Sec=Strategic Studies Security Dilemma, Balance of Power, Alliances,
War, Deterrence, Arms Control Agreements Weaknesses and contradictions of traditional
approach Anarchy? (collaboration and cooperation) State as unitary actor? (pluralism) State as primary actor? (non-state actors) State as power seeking? (small states) State as rational? (information)
LIBERALISM AND INSTITUTIONS
Post-1945 International Relations:Rise of international institutions as
collective actorsCollective action problem
Rise of European integrationRise of Pluralism in the US
Pluralism focused on new actors (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations) and new patterns of interaction (interdependence, integration).
A NEW LIBERALISM
Neoliberalism’s challenge to contemporary realism. They explain the durability of institutions despite
significant changes in context. Institutions exert a causal force on
international relations, shaping state preferences and locking them in to cooperative arrangements. Feedback loop
Democratic peace liberalism and neoliberalism are the dominant strands in liberal thinking today.
NEO-LIBERALISM
Neo-liberal institutionalism is rooted in the functional integration theoretical work of the 1950s and 60s and the complex interdependence and transnational studies literature of the 1970s and 80s. IR 2001 International Organisations in Europe
Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve co-operation in the international system.
NEO-LIBERALISM
Neo-liberal institutionalists recognize that co-operation may be harder to achieve in areas where leaders perceive they have no mutual interests.
Neo-liberals believe that states co-operate to achieve absolute gains and the greatest obstacle to co-operation is ‘cheating’ or non-compliance by other states. This is were institutions come in.
THE NEO-NEO DEBATE
The neo-neo debate is not a debate between two polar opposite worldviews.
They share an epistemology (shared knowledge), focus on similar questions and they agree on a number of assumptions about international politics.
This is an intra-paradigm debate.
THE NEO-NEO DEBATE
Neo-liberal institutionalists and neo-realists study different worlds of international politics. Neo-realists focus on security and
military issues - the high politics issue area.
Neo-liberal institutionalists focus on political economy, environmental issues, and lately, human rights issues. These issues have been called the low politics issue agenda.
THE NEO-NEO DEBATE Neo-realists explain that all states must be
concerned with the absolute and relative gains that result from international agreements and co-operative efforts.
Neo-liberal institutionalists are less concerned about relative gains and consider that all will benefit from absolute gains.
Neo-realists are more cautious about co-operation and remind us the world is still a competitive place where self-interest rules.
THE NEO-NEO DEBATE
Neo-liberal institutionalists believe that states and other actors can be persuaded to co-operate if they are convinced that all states will comply with rules and co-operation will result in absolute gains.
This debate does not discuss many important issues that challenge some of the core assumptions of each theory. For example, neo-realism cannot explain foreign
policy behavior that challenges the norm of national interest over human interests.
Neither theory addresses the impact of learning on the foreign policy behavior of states.
NEO-LIBERALISM: A RECAP
Five key points to remember about Neoliberalism States live with institutionalised cooperation States are one of many actors States are complex actors States are still rational actors States seek co-operation over conflict
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Cold War 1960s & 1970s
Rise of security debate Important changes in the West
1980s & 1990s Security debate
Strategic Studies Co-operative Security and Collective Security Human Security
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Key questions: Security for whom? Security for which values? Security from what threats? Security provided by whom? Security by what means?
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Key elements: Securitisation as a speech-act (language theory)
Force of word “security” Security and threats: neither subjective nor objective
but rather intersubjective Widens the security agenda
Opposite to the rationalist, objectivist theories Focus on ideas, identities, perceptions, beliefs Securitisation: moderate constructivist approach Regional Security complexes
See next page
EUROPEAN SECURITY COMPLEX
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
In post-Cold War Europe: Salience of regional security Region as unit of analysis Regional Security Degree of autonomy from systemic level Degree of interdependence Regionally based clusters of security
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND SECURITY
Sector Military Political Economic Societal Environ-mental
Object State’ssovereignty/territorialintegrity
Government’srecognition/legitimacy
State’seconomy?
Nation’sidentity/culture
Local andplanetarybiosphere
Threat Military attack
Coup d’etat/secessionism
Closing accessto externalresources?/Embargoes?/protectionism?/monopoly?
Migration/assimilation/prohibition topractice one’sreligion, etc.
Pollution/depletion ofnat. resources
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Summary of Social Constructivism Context of its development Questions the definition of security Adds new dimension to theoretical debate Allows for widening of agenda Highlights importance of regions
THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
Anarchy Security Dilemma Deterrence The Role of the State Alliances Conflict Security
How do different theories engage with these concepts?
SEMINAR TOPIC
Whose interests and whose security in European security?