When security community meets balance of power: overlapping regional mechanisms of security governance

Author(s):  
Emanuel Adler ◽  
Patricia Greve
2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 59-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
EMANUEL ADLER ◽  
PATRICIA GREVE

AbstractBy now arguments about the varieties of international order abound in International Relations. These disputes include arguments about the security mechanisms, institutions, and practices that sustain international orders, including balance of power and alliances, hegemony, security regimes based on regional or global institutions, public, private, and hybrid security networks, as well as different kinds of security communities. The way these orders coexist across time and space, however, has not been adequately theorised. In this article we seek to show (A) that, while analytically and normatively distinct, radically different orders, and in particular the security systems of governance on which they are based (such as balance of power and security community), often coexist or overlap in political discourse and practice. (B) We will attempt to demonstrate that the overlap of security governance systems may have important theoretical and empirical consequences: First, theoretically our argument sees ‘balance of power’ and ‘security community’ not only as analytically distinct structures of security orders, but focuses on them specifically as mechanisms based on a distinct mixture of practices. Second, this move opens up the possibility of a complex (perhaps, as John Ruggie called it, a ‘multiperspectival’) vision of regional security governance. Third, our argument may be able to inform new empirical research on the overlap of several security governance systems and the practices on which they are based. Finally, our argument can affect how we think about the boundaries of regions: Beyond the traditional geographical/geopolitical notion of regional boundaries and the social or cognitive notion of boundaries defined with reference to identity, our focus on overlapping mechanisms conceives of a ‘practical’ notion of boundaries according to which regions’ boundaries are determined by the practices that constitute regions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (04) ◽  
pp. 72-94
Author(s):  
Rafael Duarte Villa ◽  
Fabrício H. Chagas-Bastos ◽  
Camila de Macedo Braga

ABSTRACTContending rationales of peace and conflict coexist between countries and within regional spaces as conditions that motivate or constrain militarized behaviors. While the idea of balancing is still a relevant concept to understand contemporary security in South America, the region produces patterns of a nascent security community. This article argues that the regional repertoire of foreign and security policy practices draws on a hybrid security governance mechanism. The novelty brought by the cumulative interaction among South American countries is that the coexistence turns into a hybrid between both practices and discourses. To explain how hybrid formations are produced, this study analyzes the most empirically intense and academically controversial political and security interactions from interstate relations in the two security complexes in the region, the Southern Cone and the Northern Andes.


Subject Russian security agencies' jostling for influence. Significance Structural changes in the Russian security sector including President Vladimir Putin's decision in April to create a new National Guard are unsettling the balance of power between the main intelligence and security agencies. Each institution operates as an independent actor rather forming part of a particular political 'clan'. Some may amplify their calls for a crackdown ahead of the September elections to the State Duma. Impacts The rise of Viktor Zolotov as National Guard head will reshape alliances and rivalries within the security community. Mutual suspicion will create fiercer competition between the Investigative Committee, prosecution service and Federal Security Service. Kadyrov's links to Zolotov and Putin will ensure his survival despite hostility from Moscow security agencies.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sverrir Steinsson

Three things are puzzling about the Cod Wars, three militarized interstate disputes spread over 20 years. First, they occurred between two democratic NATO allies, members of a Western security community. Second, Iceland came close to withdrawing its NATO membership and closing the US base on Icelandic soil, which would have adversely affected the balance of power in the North Atlantic and jeopardized Iceland’s core security interests. Third, Iceland, a microstate, won each of these disputes. Historians and political scientists have consequently found it problematic to account for these puzzling disputes. This study proposes a Neoclassical Realist account for the occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars. I argue that the disputes occurred due to (i) powerful domestic pressures on statesmen to escalate and (ii) elite miscalculation. As the disputes escalated and Iceland’s Western alignment was put at greater risk, statesmen in both countries, mindful of the dangers of re-alignment, were able to resolve the conflicts in the end. The outcomes of the disputes reflect how British statesmen were able to make greater concessions due to weaker domestic constraints than those faced by Icelandic leaders. Iceland therefore reached a highly favorable agreement in all Cod Wars.


2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 588-599
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Martel

Abstract This article contributes to ongoing debates on security community-building in international relations (IR) by focusing on the productive role of discursive contestation in this process. It builds on recent work associated with the “practice” turn, discourse theory, and the study of security communities in the Global South to propose a new understanding of how the diversification of security governance impacts security community-building. The article develops an original discourse-based approach that conceptualizes security community-building as a polysemic, omnidirectional, and contested process in which social agents debate the meaning of security and the boundaries of community. It applies this approach to the case of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to show how contestation over the organization's identity as a security community “in the making” takes place along two dimensions. First, different (and potentially incompatible) versions of the community compete for dominance. Second, contestation also unfolds “internally,” among social agents who agree on which version ought to prevail. I illustrate this part of the argument through an examination of the debate over ASEAN's identity as a “people-centered” community. The demonstration is supported by the analysis of “texts” enacted in the discursive field where the security community is talked into existence, as well as interviews with practitioners.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document