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?