Skip to main content

Introduction: Security Communities and International Relations

  • Chapter
  • 375 Accesses

Abstract

Contrary to popular images of International Relations, people have never inhabited a state of nature. The ‘state of nature’ was an analogy used by Hobbes, Rousseau and others to describe the human condition prior to the creation of states. It was a brutal world where individuals had to rely on force to survive. Thankfully, individuals have always constructed societies and communities. Nevertheless, traditional approaches to International Relations continue to cling onto Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature for two principal reasons. First, many writers believe that without the modern state there would be no society, no rules, and no realistic expectation of peaceful change. Life without the state would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’.1 Individuals would confront their personal security dilemma on a daily basis never knowing whether their neighbour’s preparations for self-defence were in fact preparations for future attack.2 In such a situation there would be no economy, no culture, no politics, and no human development of any kind. This belief provides the foundation for a communitarian justification for the state. This justification holds that states allow individuals to escape the state of nature. They create a space for communities to construct moral meaning and pursue collective aims. Moreover, they allow individuals to pursue their own idea of the good life without the daily fear for their lives.3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  2. The communitarian justification for states is discussed by Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), pp. 52–81.

    Google Scholar 

  3. David Rasmussen (ed.), Universalism vs. Communitarianism: Contemporary Debates in Ethics (Cambridge Mass: MIT Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 227–8.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. The idea that the pursuit of morality and justice is limited to the state is the cornerstone of communitarianism. The idea of ‘bounded justice’ is put forward by John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  6. For an overview of the construction of nationhood see Alex J. Bellamy, The Formation of Croatian National Identity in the 1990s: A Centuries-old Dream? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. This is the core assumption underpinning Kenneth Waltz’s, Theory of International Politics (Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nicholas J. Wheeler and Ken Booth, ‘The Security Dilemma’, in J. Baylis and N. J. Rengger (eds), Dilemmas of World Politics: International Issues in a Changing World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For excellent overviews of the development of the state and state systems see Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stephen Hobden and John Hobson (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anthony Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence (London: University of California Press, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  13. For example, between 1450 and 1777 the Iroquois nations managed conflict between them through a league that enabled them to eliminate war between them entirely. See Neta C. Crawford, ‘A Security Regime Among Democracies: Cooperation Among Iroquois Nations’, International Organization, 48 (3), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Catherine Bracewell, C., The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry and Holy War in the Sixteenth-Century Adriatic (London: Cornell University Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Francis Carter, Dubrovnik (Ragusa): A Classic City-State (London: Seminar Press, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Ward Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (London: Cornell University Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Karl Deutsch et al, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organizations in the Light of Historical Experiences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds), Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Craig Snyder, ‘Regional Security Structures’, in Craig Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Security and Strategy (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ole Holsti, Unity and Disintegration in International Alliances: Comparative Studies (London: Wiley, 1976), p. 341.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The ‘relative gains’ issue was first put forward by Joseph Grieco, ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization, 42 (3), 1988.

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  22. William Tow, Asia-Pacific Strategic Relations: Seeking Convergent Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  23. For a more detailed discussion of balance of power politics see Martin Wight, ‘The Balance of Power’ in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations, Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Steven Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  25. G. John Ikenberry and Jitsuo Tsuchiyama, ‘Between Balance of Power and Community: The Future of Multilateral Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2 (1), 2002, p. 72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. See William Wohlforth, ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security, 24 (1), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kenneth Waltz, The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, 18 (2), 1993.

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  28. For one of many convincing explanations of the persistence of NATO see Robert B. McCalla, ‘NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War’, International Organization, 50 (3), 1996.

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robert Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War (London: Vintage, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Colin Mclnnes, ‘Spectator Sport Warfare’, in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff (eds), Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Alex J. Bellamy, Kosovo and International Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Mark Beeson and Alex J. Bellamy, ‘Globalization, Security and International Order after September 11’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 2003 forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jan Hallenberg, ‘The Extension of the European Security Community to the Periphery: France in the Mediterranean and Finland and Sweden in the Baltic Countries’, NATO Fellowship Final Report, 2000, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, ‘Security Communities in Theoretical Perspective’, in Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds), Security Communities (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), p. 7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Joseph Legro, ‘Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism’, International Organization, 51 (1), 1997, p. 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. This links in with the Michael Billig’s ideas about ‘banal nationalism’. Banal nationalism is nationalism so deeply entrenched that it is invoked subconsciously when people do not have to be reminded of their nationality and what it means. Similarly membership of a security community is an embedded norm that actors do not have to be reminded of. See Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Karl Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations, 2nd Edition (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978), pp. 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization, 53 (4), 1999, p. 698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. On mutual constitution see Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: CUP, 1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. On the importance of legitimation in global politics see Inis Claude, Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Christian Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sean Kay, NATO and the Future of European Security (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Touchstone Books, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey (eds), Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate (London: Lynne Rienner, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Emanuel Adler, ‘Thomas Risse-Kappen and John Vasquez have all emphasised the idea that security communities are predicated on the notion of ‘democratic peace’. Thus, security communities may only exist between democratic states. However, following Acharya’s lead, I argue that the common values, norms and identities that underpin a security community need not necessarily be liberal or democratic, a point borne out by the cases of ASEAN and the GCC discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. See Emanuel Adler, The Seeds of Peaceful Change’, John M. Vasquez (ed.), Classics of International Relations (Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thomas Risse-Kappen, Cooperation Among Democracies: The European Influence on US Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Matthias Albert, David Jacobsen and Josef Lapid (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory (London: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  51. John Macmillan and Andrew Linklater (eds), Boundaries in Question; New Directions in International Relations (London: Pinter, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2004 Alex J. Bellamy

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bellamy, A.J. (2004). Introduction: Security Communities and International Relations. In: Security Communities and their Neighbours. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005600_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics