2Approaches to European Security RealismNeo-realismLiberalism/UtopianismNeo-liberalismSocial ConstructivismPost Structuralism
3Approaches to European Security What is security?
4Realism and Strategic Theory Realism (classical)Pessimism about human nature and international systemAnarchySelf-helpMajor concern: survival and securityAccumulation of powerFocus is on the state/nation – Why? (Hobbes)Treaty of Westphalia (1648)
5Realism and Strategic Theory Use in the Cold WarRole and application of military power to achieve political objectivesGeopolitics and territoryConventional and strategic military power(Nuclear) deterrenceAlliancesBi-polar system and peace
6Realism 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 frequencyWar:Causes of (particular) wars (19th C), orCauses of War (phenomenon) (K. Waltz)
7Realism and Strategic Theory Basic Tenants of Neo-RealismAnarchic systemStates are primary actorsStates are unitary actorsStates are power seekingStates are rational actors
8Realism and Strategic Theory Kenneth Waltz Man, the State and War (1959)3 “Images” (or causes)Human BehaviourInternal Structures of the StateInternational AnarchyWar: functional to system’s preservationBalance of power mechanismConflict-resolution mechanism
9Realism and Strategic Theory Balance of Power and DeterrenceWhat is deterrence?Nuclear Deterrence in the Cold WarMAD-based stabilitybased on rationality (?)Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold WarGreater deterrence?Greater instability and danger?
10Realism and Strategic Theory Dominance of (Neo)realism in IR during Cold War:International Sec=Strategic StudiesSecurity Dilemma, Balance of Power, Alliances, War, Deterrence, Arms Control AgreementsWeaknesses and contradictions of traditional approachAnarchy? (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)
11Liberalism and institutions Post-1945 International Relations:Rise of international institutions as collective actorsCollective action problemRise of European integrationRise of Pluralism in the USPluralism focused on new actors (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations) and new patterns of interaction (interdependence, integration).In the post-1945 period, liberals turned to international institutions to carry out a number of functions the state could not perform. This was the catalyst for integration theory in Europe and pluralism in the United States. By the early 1970s, pluralism had mounted a significant challenge to realism. It focused on new actors (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations) and new patterns of interaction (interdependence, integration).
12A 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 loopDemocratic peace liberalism and neoliberalism are the dominant strands in liberal thinking today.Neoliberalism represents a more sophisticated theoretical challenge to contemporary realism. They explain the durability of institutions despite significant changes in context. According to neoliberals, institutions exert a causal force on international relations, shaping state preferences and locking them in to cooperative arrangements.Democratic peace liberalism and neoliberalism are the dominant strands in liberal thinking today.
13Neo-liberalismNeo-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 EuropeNeo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve co- operation in the international system.Regimes and institutions help govern a competitive and anarchic international system and they encourage, and at times require, multilateralism and co-operation as a means of securing national interests.
14Neo-liberalismNeo-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.
15This is an intra-paradigm debate. The neo-neo debateThe 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.
16The neo-neo debateNeo-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.
17The neo-neo debateNeo-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.
18The neo-neo debateNeo-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.
19Neo-liberalism: A recap Five key points to remember about NeoliberalismStates live with institutionalised cooperationStates are one of many actorsStates are complex actorsStates are still rational actorsStates seek co-operation over conflict
20Social Constructivism Cold War1960s & 1970sRise of security debateImportant changes in the West1980s & 1990sSecurity debateStrategic StudiesCo-operative Security and Collective SecurityHuman Security
21Social Constructivism Key questions:Security for whom?Security for which values?Security from what threats?Security provided by whom?Security by what means?
22Social Constructivism Key elements:Securitisation as a speech-act (language theory)Force of word “security”Security and threats: neither subjective nor objective but rather intersubjectiveWidens the security agendaOpposite to the rationalist, objectivist theoriesFocus on ideas, identities, perceptions, beliefsSecuritisation: moderate constructivist approachRegional Security complexesSee next page
24Social Constructivism In post-Cold War Europe:Salience of regional securityRegion as unit of analysisRegional SecurityDegree of autonomy from systemic levelDegree of interdependenceRegionally based clusters of security
26Social Constructivism Summary of Social ConstructivismContext of its developmentQuestions the definition of securityAdds new dimension to theoretical debateAllows for widening of agendaHighlights importance of regions
27Theories and Concepts Anarchy Security Dilemma Deterrence The Role of the StateAlliancesConflictSecurityHow do different theories engage with these concepts?
28Seminar TopicWhose interests and whose security in European security?