Emanuel Adler

Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program

Studies in this issue show that the epistemic communities approach amounts to a progressive research program with which students of world politics can empirically study the role of reason and ideas in international relations. By focusing on epistemic communities, analysts may better understand how states come to recognize interests under conditions of uncertainty. According to this research program, international relations can be seen as an evolutionary process in which epistemic communities play meaningful roles as sources of policy innovation, channels by which these innovations diffuse internationally, and catalysts in the political and institutional processes leading to the selection of their shared goals. The influence of epistemic communities persists mainly through the institutions that they help create and inform with their preferred world vision. By elucidating the cause-and-effect understandings in the particular issue-area and familiarizing policymakers with the reasoning processes by which decisions are made elsewhere, epistemic communities contribute to the transparency of action and the development of common inferences and expectations and thereby contribute to policy coordination. International cooperation and, indeed, the development of new world orders based on common meanings and understandings may thus depend on the extent to which nation-states apply their power on behalf of practices that epistemic communities may have helped create, diffuse, and perpetuate.

Security Communities: A framework for the study of security communities

Security communities never generated much of a research program. Foundering on various theoretical, conceptual, and methodological brakers, the concept of security communities remained largely admired from afar. This chapter aspires to fulfill the initial promise of the security ommunities agenda by offering a reconstructed architecture. The presented framework benefits from the best of Deutschs original conceptualization and corrects for its shortcomings by borrowing from four decades of substantial insights from sociological and international relations theory and various empirical studies that were informed by the concept of security communities. This chapter is organized in the following way. The first section begins by offering a conceptual vocabulary for the study of security community. One of the virtues of the study of security communities is also one of its vices: it raises a host of important but potentially intractable concepts such as community, dependable expectations of peaceful change, governance, institutions, and on and on. Therefore, this section begins to provide a conceptual and definitional map. Thesecond section presents a framework for studying the emergence of security communities that is analytically organized around three “tiers.” The first tier consists of recipitating factors that encourage states to orient themselves in each others direction and coordinate their policies. The second tier consists of the “structural” elements of power and ideas, and the “process” elements of transactions, international organizations, and social learning. The dynamic, positive, and reciprocal relationship between these variables leads to the third tier: the development of trust and collective identity formation.

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

By 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.

Security Communities: Security communities in theoretical perspective

Scholars of international relations are generally uncomfortable evoking the language of community to understand international politics. The idea that actors can share values, norms, and symbols that provide a social identity, and engage in various interactions in myriad spheres that reflect long-term interest, diffuse reciprocity, and trust, strikes fear and incredulity in their hearts. This discomfort and disbelief is particularly pronounced when they are asked to consider how international community might imprint international security. Although states might engage in the occasional act of security cooperation, anarchy ultimately and decisively causes them to seek advantage over their neighbors, and to act in a self-interested and selfhelp manner. The relevant political community, according to most scholars, is bounded by the territorial state, and there is little possibilityof community outside of it. This volume thinks the unthinkable: that community exists at the international level, that security politics is profoundly shaped by it, and that those states dwelling within an international community might develop a pacific disposition. In staking out this position we summon a concept made prominent by Karl Deutsch nearly forty years ago: “security communities.” Deutsch observed a pluralistic security community whenever states become integrated to the point that they have a sense of community, which, in turn, creates the assurance that they will settle their differences short of war. In short, Deutsch claimed that those states that dwell in a security community had created not simply a stable order but, in fact, a stable peace.

Progress in postwar international relations

Defining and conceptualizing progress in international relations, by Emanuel Adler, Beverly Crawford, and Jack DonnellyCognitive evolution: a dynamic approach for the study of international relations and their progress, by Emanuel AdlerChange in regime type and progress in international relations, by Philippe C. SchmitterSeasons of peace: progress in postwar international security, by Emanuel AdlerThe ideas of progress and U.S. nonproliferation policy, by Michael BrennerEmbedded liberalism revisited: institutions and progress in international economic relations, by John Gerard RuggieProgress for the rich: the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, by Robert T. Kudrle and Stefanie Ann LenwayMaking progress in international environmental protection, by Peter M. HaasProgress in human rights, by Jack DonnellyAssisting the Palestinian refugees: progress in human rights?, by Benjamin N. SchiffStructuralism and its critics: recent progress in international relations theory, by Stephen HaggardToward a theory of progress in international relations, by Beverly Crawford

Ideological “guerrillas” and the quest for technological autonomy: Brazil's domestic computer industry

Brazils domestic computer industry, developed during the past decade, has excluded multinational giants such as IBM from Brazils growing micro- and minicomputer markets. Changes in computer technology and in markets, as well as in domestic economic and political conditions, helped facilitate Brazils progress toward technological independence. But primary support for the project came from technocratic and military elites who were determined for ideological reasons to reduce Brazils computer dependency and to challenge the dominance of multinationals. Ideologically motivated technocrats used their positions in state bureaucracies to convince policy makers of the industrys viability and to set up institutions that would defend the autonomy model and turn a sectoral policy into a national policy. Brazil still depends on foreign software and microelectronics; however, bargaining theory correctly asserts that even dependency in sophisticated technological sectors can be partially overcome. Bargaining theories must not overlook the importance of cognitive and institutional processes, which can make the difference between taking action to reduce dependency or doing nothing.

The convergence of civilizations : constructing a Mediterranean region

Acknowledgments PART ONE: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK * Normative Power: The European Practice of Region-Building and the Case of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership EMANUEL ADLER and BEVERLY CRAWFORD PART TWO: LOGIC AND MODELS OF REGION-BUILDING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN * Mare Nostrum? The Sources, Logic, and Dilemmas of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership ETEL SOLINGEN and SABA KENSES OZYURT* A Political Agenda for Region-Building? The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and Democracy Promotion in North Africa RICHARD GILLESPIE* The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and Sub-Regionalism: A Case of Region-Building? STEPHEN C. CALLEYA PART THREE: INSTRUMENTS AND PRACTICES OF REGION-BUILDING * The European Origins of Euro-Mediterranean Practices FEDERICA BICCHI * Political Securitization and Democratization in the Maghreb: Ambiguous Discourses and Fine-Tuning Practices for a Security Partnership SAID HADDADI * Economic Liberalism between Theory and Practice ALFRED TOVIAS * Practices and Their Failure: Arab-Israeli Relations and the Barcelona Process JOEL PETERS PART FOUR: CULTURE AND IDENTITIES * The Building of Regional Security Partnership and the Security-Culture Divide in the Mediterranean Region FULVIO ATTINA * Turkey: Between East and West METIN HEPER * Region-Building, European Union Normative Power, and Contested Identities: The Case of Israel RAFFAELLA A. DEL SARTO PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS * The EuroMed beyond Civilizational Paradigms KALYPSO NICOLAIDIS and DIMITRI NICOLAIDIS Contributors Index

Security Communities: Studying security communities in theory, comparison, and history

Karl Deutsch and his colleagues introduced the concept of security communities in 1957, but it sat in relative theoretical anonymity and spawned few empirical studies for the next several decades. The studies that informed the seminal volume went unpublished,1 and few scholars found the concept of security communities particularly inviting against the backdrop of the Cold War, nuclear politics, and the hyperstatism and systemic theorizing that would come to define the discipline. This volume has offered the first sustained and systematic -but by no means definitive - effort to plow the twin fields of theory and history in order to dramatize the promise of the concept of security communities, and to examine regional developments through its gaze. Our goal, therefore, has been as much exploratory as exculpatory; we have been as interested in identifying the conditions under which security communities might come into existence as in providing greater empirical weight behind a revised conceptual apparatus that might prove better able to generate a rich historical and theoretical lineage. In this concluding chapter we weave the conceptual framework with the various contributions to tease out some general propositions concerning the study of security community, to identify some shortcomings, and to consider some future avenues of research. In the first section we extend our framework by revisiting the tiers we presented in chapter 2 and refocusing energies on the concept of trust as it marks the development of a security community. To review, we were concerned with precipitating conditions, and with the dynamic relationship between process and structure.

Condition(s) of Peace

‘Ladies and gentlemen, the time for peace has come.’ The late Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel The conditions in which peace can exist are now just what they have always been (even if time and place make them appear different): a higher expected utility from peace than from war; a ‘civic culture’; a commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes; strong institutions; an ethical code; mutual legitimization; peacemakers (because peace is socially constructed); a social-communicative process; material and normative resources; social learning (to take us from here to there); shared trust; and, most important, a collective purpose and social identity. As I will explain below, these are not ‘necessary’ conditions in any formal sense. Nor are there really sufficient conditions of peace, other, perhaps, than lobotomy and the total elimination of weapons, including fingernails.

Evolutionary Interpretations of World Politics

duty to stop government injustice), and a weak “angle of repose” (184–86) (citizens must be skeptical of government claims and may pursue civil remedies even when the government has forgiven. (204–05)) This vacillation generates some tension, because his central claim that government must sometimes forgive to promote reconciliation is itself a claim of necessity. If citizens are to be skeptical, how can they be reconciled? Again, the call of forgiveness pushes toward a less individualistic account of government and citizenship than Digeser provides. But his brave and careful argument for forgiveness within a traditional liberal framework will set the terms of the debate and open up new possibilities for theoretical engagement in this critical topic.