Abstract
This chapter forms the conceptual core of the book following the main research questions which aim at exploring how BRICS respond to large-scale armed conflict and how we can explain preferences for particular types of action. This chapter provides the reader with a detailed typology. Six ideal type responses are presented ranging from cooperative and multilateralism to neo-imperial and unilateral action. Furthermore, the chapter discusses a number of explanatory variables which have been chosen to explain the choice of response. These are: proximity to conflict, availability of power resources in relation to strategic interests, the type of conflict in terms of its relevance for global order questions, economic consequences of the conflict on BRICS members, the extent to which conflict engagement can resonate with the normative BRICS agenda and lastly responding to conflict in order to act upon global humanitarian norms. The following empirical chapters apply the conceptual framework to four case studies which are Libya, Syria, Ukraine and South Sudan.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Naím, Moisés cited in Stuenkel (2016) Post Western World How Emerging Powers Are Remaking Global Order. Malden, MA: Polity, p. 27.
- 2.
See for example: Breslin, Shaun (2013) “China and the global order: signalling threat or friendship?” International Affairs 89(3), 615–634 or Kastner, Scott L. and Saunders, Philip C. (2012) “Is China a Status Quo or Revisionist State? Leadership Travel as an Empirical Indicator of Foreign Policy Priorities” International Studies Quarterly 56(1), 163–177.
- 3.
Kahler, Miles (2013) “Rising powers and global governance: Negotiating change in a resilient status quo”, International Affairs 89(3), 711–729.
- 4.
George, Alexander and Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press, p. 233.
- 5.
Hart, Andrew and Jones, Bruce (2010) “How Do Rising Powers Rise?”, Survival, 52(6), 63–88. Nolte, Detlef (2010) “How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics” Review of International Studies 36, 881–901.
- 6.
Hurrell, Andrew (2006) “Hegemony, liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers?” International Affairs 82(1), 1–19.
- 7.
Kahler, Miles (2013) “Rising powers and global governance: Negotiating change in a resilient status quo”, International Affairs 89(3), 711–729.
- 8.
Narlikar, Amrita (2013) “Introduction Negotiating the rise of new powers”, International Affairs 89(3), 561–576. Wigell, Mikael (2016) “Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism” Asia Europe Journal 14, 135–151. Stephen, Matthews (2014) “Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge” European Journal of International Relations 20(4) 912–938.
- 9.
The exception is Troitskiy, Mikhail (2015) “BRICS Approaches to Security Multilateralism” ASPJ Africa & Francophonie 76–88 who is maybe the only one who has categorized BRICS responses toward the West. He distinguishes between four response types which are asymmetric, legal constrains, matching strategies and cooperation.
- 10.
Pedersen, Thomas (2002). “Cooperative hegemony: power, ideas and institutions in regional integration”, Review of International Studies 28, 682.
- 11.
Destradi, Sandra (2010) “Regional powers and their strategies: empire, hegemony, and leadership” Review of International Studies 36, 903–930.
- 12.
Prys, Miriam (2010) “Hegemony, domination, detachment: differences in regional powerhood”, International Studies Review 12, 479–504.
- 13.
Wigell, Mikael (2016) “Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism” Asia Europe Journal 14, 135–151.
- 14.
Frazier, Derrick V. and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll (2010) “Regional Powers and Security: A Framework for Understanding Order within Regional Security Complexes” European Journal of International Relations 16(4): 731–753.
- 15.
Destradi, p. 929.
- 16.
Nolte, Detlef (2018) “Regional powers revisited: Status and leadership roles” paper presented at the Regional Powers Revisited conference at GIGA Hamburg 26–27 April 2018.
- 17.
Carlsnaes, Walter (2013) “Foreign Policy.” In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 298–325.
- 18.
Diehl, Paul (1991) “Geography and war: A review and assessment of the empirical literature” International Interaction 17(1) 11–27.
- 19.
Starr, Harvey (2005) “Territory, Proximity, and Spatiality: The Geography of International Conflict” International Studies Review 7, 387–406.
- 20.
Robst, John, Polachek, Solomon and Chang, Yuan-Ching (2007) “Geographic Proximity, Trade, and International Conflict/Cooperation” Conflict Management and Peace Science 24(1) 1–24.
- 21.
Mattern, Janice (2008) “The Concept of Power and the (Un)discipline of International Relations” in Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-40 accessed 14 Nov. 2017.
- 22.
Frazier, Derrick V. and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll (2010).
- 23.
Patey, Luke (2014). The New Kings of Crude. China, India, and the Global Struggle for Oil in Sudan and South Sudan. London: C. Hurst & Co.
- 24.
Vendulka Kubalkova (ed.) (2001) Foreign Policy in a Constructed World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
- 25.
Treib, Oliver (2014) “Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs”, Living Reviews in European Governance, 9(1): http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2014-1 accessed 16 Nov. 2017.
- 26.
Börzel, Tanja (2000) “Why There Is No ‘Southern Problem’: On Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy 7(1): 141–162. Risse, Thomas, Cowles, Maria, Caporaso (2001) “Europeanization and Domestic Change: Introduction” in Risse, Thomas et al. (eds) Transforming Europe Europeanization and Domestic Change. New York: Cornell University Press.
- 27.
Finnemore, Martha (1996) “Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism,” International Organization, 50 (2): 325–347. Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (1998), “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change” International Organization 52(4), 887–917.
- 28.
Falleti, Tulia and Lynch, Julia (2009) “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies 42, 91,143–1166. Bennett, Andrew (2013) “The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory” European Journal of International Relations 19(3) 459–481.
- 29.
Meyer, David and Minkoff, Debra (2004) “Conceptualizing Political Opportunity” Social Forces 82 (4) 1457–1492.
- 30.
Snidal, Duncan (2013) “Rational Choice and International Relations” in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse Thomas and Simmons, Beth (eds) Handbook of International Relations. Sage Publishing, 85–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brosig, M. (2019). Theoretical Framework: Modeling BRICS Response to Armed Conflict. In: The Role of BRICS in Large-Scale Armed Conflict. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18537-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18537-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18536-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18537-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)