The here to be presented idea that also a regions merely consisting of illiberal states
might follow the path of peace via the building of a security community is all but
uncontested. When I presented the concept of illiberal security communities for the first
time1, people felt deeply uncomfortable with it. There were two main reasons for the
obvious disapproval. Either the theorem was refused because of its notion of community
or due to its illiberal component.
The first group of opponents can be labelled as adherents of the (neo-) realist school.
They reject the mere idea of inter-state communities ? a concept that goes far beyond
self- interest driven (counter-) alliances which, for realists, represent the only possibility
of international cooperation. This quite fundamental critique targets primarily the basic
concept of security communities that was first deve loped by Karl W. Deutsch and his
colleagues in 19572, and which served as ‘row material’ for the here presented,
modified version. The Deutschian theorem of security communities cha llenges the
realist paradigm in two respects. Firstly, it negates the axiomatic relationship between
anarchy and war, and refuses moreover the inevitability of the war prone security
dilemma, which conceptualises international relations as an inherently belligerent,
vicious circle of arms races and power accumulation3. Secondly, by stressing the notion
of community, the Deutschian analysis incorporates the by realists ignored ‘societal’
factors - such as loyalty, collective identity and the power of communication in creating
trust - as being conductive to a stable peace among community members4.
[...]
1 In the course of the summer term 2004 I presented a draft of the theoretical part of this paper to the Colloquium of
the Centre for Transatlantic Foreign and Security Policy Studies, Free University of Berlin.
2 Even though the very first notion of security communities was introduced by Richard van Wagenen in the early
1950s, it is noncontentious that Karl W. Deutsch is the ‘father’ of this concept. Deutsch and his associates were the
first in developing a comprehensive theoretical framework of it that was furthermore empirically applied, Deutsch:
1957. For a short overview see Adler/Barnett 1998: 6-9.
3 Hertz 1950: 157.
4 Deutsch 1968: 272f.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Concept’s Beginning and Why We Need a Concept of Illiberal Securities
2.1. The Deutschian Concept - Integration and Security Communities
2.2. The ill-fated marriage between Concept of Security Communities and the Liberal Democratic Peace Theorem
3. Pluralistic Security Communities Revisited
3.1. Precipitating Conditions for the Emergence of Pluralistic Security Community
3.2. After Cooperation: The Genesis of a Pluralistic Security Community
3.2.1. Structure: Power and Knowledge
3.2.2. Process: Institutions, Norms, and Social Learning
3.2.3. The Security Community’s Pillars: Trust and Collective Identity
3.3. How Do We Know a Security Community When We See One?
4. An Illiberal Security Community in Southeast Asia?
4.1. Prologue: How Southeast Asia became a Community Region
4.1.1. Before ASEAN: Two Stillbirths of Regional Cooperation
4.1.2. The Disparate Beginnings of ASEAN
4.2. ASEAN – A Security Community Building Institution?
4.3. The ASEAN Norms: Centrepiece of a collective Identity?
4.3.1. Behavioural Norms of ASEAN
4.3.2. Procedural Norms of ASEAN
4.4. ASEAN’s Collective (Security) Identity: 2 Mini-Case Studies
4.4.1. Case Study I: ASEAN and the Cambodia Conflict
a) The Conflict’s Background
b) ASEAN’s Reactions to the Vietnamese Norm Violations
4.4.2. Case Study II: ASEAN and the Mischief Reef Incident in the Context of the Spratly Dispute
a) The Conflict’s Background
b) ASEAN’s Reactions to Norm Violations in the course of the Spratly Dispute
4.4.3. Conclusion of the Case Studies
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This work aims to challenge the prevailing liberal interpretation of security communities, which restricts them to liberal democratic states. The central research question explores whether a group of illiberal states, specifically within the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN), can develop into a security community and foster regional peace through social learning and the construction of a collective identity.
- The theoretical revision of the security community concept beyond inter-democratic relations.
- The construction of an eclectic framework based on constructivist approaches for non-liberal security communities.
- The empirical analysis of ASEAN's development as an illiberal security community.
- The role of regional institutions in facilitating norm internalisation and collective identity formation.
- The evaluation of how ASEAN handles internal and external security conflicts to maintain regional stability.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
The here to be presented idea that also a regions merely consisting of illiberal states might follow the path of peace via the building of a security community is all but uncontested. When I presented the concept of illiberal security communities for the first time, people felt deeply uncomfortable with it. There were two main reasons for the obvious disapproval. Either the theorem was refused because of its notion of community or due to its illiberal component.
The first group of opponents can be labelled as adherents of the (neo-) realist school. They reject the mere idea of inter-state communities ? a concept that goes far beyond self-interest driven (counter-) alliances which, for realists, represent the only possibility of international cooperation. This quite fundamental critique targets primarily the basic concept of security communities that was first developed by Karl W. Deutsch and his colleagues in 1957, and which served as ‘row material’ for the here presented, modified version. The Deutschian theorem of security communities challenges the realist paradigm in two respects. Firstly, it negates the axiomatic relationship between anarchy and war, and refuses moreover the inevitability of the war prone security dilemma, which conceptualises international relations as an inherently belligerent, vicious circle of arms races and power accumulation. Secondly, by stressing the notion of community, the Deutschian analysis incorporates the by realists ignored ‘societal’ factors - such as loyalty, collective identity and the power of communication in creating trust - as being conductive to a stable peace among community members.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the core argument that illiberal states can form security communities, challenging realist and liberal democratic dominance in current literature.
2. The Concept’s Beginning and Why We Need a Concept of Illiberal Securities: Critically evaluates the Deutschian origin of security communities and the restrictive liberal interpretations that have historically limited its analytical scope.
3. Pluralistic Security Communities Revisited: Develops a revised, eclectic framework focusing on social construction, norms, and institutions to explain how security communities emerge.
4. An Illiberal Security Community in Southeast Asia?: Applies the revised framework to ASEAN, analysing its formation, norms, and response to security incidents like the Cambodia conflict and the Spratly dispute.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, asserting that ASEAN demonstrates that illiberal regions can successfully achieve stable peace and collective identity formation without adhering to Western-centric liberal values.
Keywords
Security Community, Illiberal States, ASEAN, Constructivism, Collective Identity, Regional Peace, Social Learning, Norms, Institutions, International Relations, Southeast Asia, Conflict Management, Cooperative Security, Democratic Peace, Regional Resilience.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that security communities, defined as groups of states that have dependable expectations of peaceful change, are not restricted to liberal democracies. It asserts that illiberal states can also construct such communities through social learning and shared norms.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study covers international relations theory, the evolution of security community concepts, constructivist institutionalism, and the specific historical and political dynamics of Southeast Asian regionalism.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to revise the explanatory scope of the security community theorem to include regions of illiberal states and to demonstrate through the empirical case of ASEAN that such regions can achieve stable regional peace.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The study utilizes a constructivist, eclectic framework to analyze institutional processes, normative structures, and state interactions, moving beyond purely materialist or rationalist accounts of regional peace.
What topics are discussed in the main part?
The main part revisits theoretical definitions of security communities, identifies structural and process-related triggers (power, knowledge, norms, and institutions), and empirically examines ASEAN's norms and its management of crises like the Cambodia conflict and the Mischief Reef incident.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Security Community, Illiberal States, ASEAN, Constructivism, Collective Identity, Regional Peace, and Social Learning.
How does the author define the "ASEAN Way"?
The "ASEAN Way" is defined as a set of non-legalized procedural norms based on informality, consensus-building, quiet diplomacy, and non-confrontational bargaining styles, which facilitate trust and identity formation.
Why are the Cambodia and Spratly cases significant for the argument?
These case studies serve as empirical tests. They show that despite conflicting national interests and contrary unilateral incentives, ASEAN states mostly prioritized collective norms, thereby proving that the organization functions as a security community rather than merely an alliance.
- Quote paper
- Patricia Becker (Author), 2004, ILLIBERAL SECURITY COMMUNITIES - A revised concept and the empirical example of ASEAN, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/28758
