Mathias Albert

The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Transformative Power of Integration

Our article analyzes the impact of the European Union (EU) on border conflicts, in particular how integration and association are related to conflict trans- formation. We approach this issue from a theoretically as well as empirically grounded constructivist perspective. On this basis we propose a stage model of conflict devel- opment, based on the degree of securitization and societal reach of conflict commu- nication. We argue that the EU can transform border conflicts and propose a four pathway-model of EU impact. This model comprises forms of EU impact that are, on the one hand, either actor-driven or indirectly caused by the integration process and have, on the other hand, as their main target either particular policies or the wider society in border conflict areas. We then apply this model to a comparative study of border conflicts, thereby analyzing the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Greece- Turkey, Cyprus, Europes North (EU-Russia) and Israel-Palestine. We finish with a specification of the conditions of positive and negative EU impact.

Differentiation: A sociological approach to international relations theory

This article sets out an analytical framework of differentiation derived from sociology and anthropology and argues that it can and should be applied to international relations (IR) theory. Differentiation is about how to distinguish and analyse the components that make up any social whole: are all the components essentially the same, or are they distinguishable by status or function? We argue that this approach provides a framing for IR theory that is more general and integrative than narrower theories derived from economics or political science. We show why this set of ideas has so far not been given much consideration within IR, and how and why the one encounter between IR and sociology that might have changed this — Waltz’s transposition of anarchy and functional differentiation from Durkheim — failed to do so. We set out in some detail how differentiation theory bears on the subject matter of IR arguing that this set of ideas offers new ways of looking not only at the understanding of structure in IR, but also at structural change and world history. We argue that differentiation holds out to IR a major possibility for theoretical development. What is handed on from anthropology and sociology is mainly designed for smaller and simpler subject matters than that of IR. In adapting differentiation theory to its more complex, layered subject matter, IR can develop it into something new and more powerful for social theory as a whole.

On order and conflict: International Relations and the ‘communicative turn’

This article begins from the observation that while communication is a widely used catch-phrase in current IR theorising, the very concept of ‘communication’ is still mainly treated in terms of simple sender-receiver models which do not sufficiently elaborate how the insights of the ‘communicative turn’ can be made fruitful for IR theorising. The argument is developed in three steps. First – particularly drawing on the work of Karl W. Deutsch – we identify those pockets in IR theory, namely conflict studies and theories of ‘communicative action’, in which ‘communication’ plays a considerable theoretical role. Second, it is claimed that placing ‘communication’ at the centre of any theory of IR requires taking full account of the theoretical consequences of the ‘linguistic turn’. To develop this argument requires an examination of the often implicit notion of ‘communication’ in contemporary uses of speech act theory and symbolic interactionism in current IR theory. Such a move necessarily leads to the diagnosis that all social systems and orders of exchange, including international relations, are communicatively constituted. Finally, such a view enables a reconfiguration of the central problems of ‘order’ and ‘conflict’ in IR theory in an innovative fashion: while the problem of order can be restated not as the problem of establishing regularities and patterns but as a problem of disconnecting communications, the problem of conflict can be restated not as a problem of a disruption of communication but as a problem of continuing conflict communication.

Securitization, sectors and functional differentiation

So far, securitization analysis has proceeded on the basis of an assumption that there are sectoral differences between securitization dynamics. However, sectors in this context were primarily seen as analytical ‘lenses’, as complexity-reducing cuts through a complex social reality. In this article, we first reflect on the ontological status of ‘sectors’. Do they represent functionally differentiated realms of world politics or world society, or do sectors and functional realms need to be separated from one another clearly? After giving a short introduction to the notion of ‘functional differentiation’ in international relations and briefly reflecting on the ontological/analytical distinction, we scrutinize the relation between sectors and functionally differentiated realms of society. Although sectors hang together with functional differentiation, much depends on the version of functional differentiation theory used. In the communication theoretical version, securitization would be firmly located within the political system. References to functionally specific sectors would then – contra Waltz – point not only towards functional differentiation between the political and other functionally defined realms of (international) society, but also towards ongoing functional differentiation within the (international) political system.

Conflicts about water: Securitizations in a global context

In the current literature in International Relations and Conflict Studies, water as a source of conflict is either extremely over- or exceedingly underrated. In order to account for the dynamics of water conflicts, it is argued in this article that the study of water conflicts should be linked to comprehensive theories of social conflict and world society. A theoretical framework is developed based on a combination of securitization theory, modern systems theory and sociological neo-institutionalism. The usefulness of this framework is illustrated through two empirical cases of water conflicts, namely Spain and Egypt/Sudan. This study contributes to an understanding of the evolution of water conflicts as a result of securitization practices, the dynamics of these conflicts as complex social systems and as the outcome of local adaptations to and of ‘world cultural’ frames.

Entgrenzung und Formierung neuer politischer Räume

Nach einer lange, intensiv und nicht immer strukturiert gefuhrten Diskussion um Begriff, Inhalt und Konsequenzen der „Globalisierung“ hat ein Prozes der disziplinaren Schwerpunktbildung eingesetzt. Fur die umfassende Begriffsbestimmung und Bewertung des Gesamtphanomens haben soziologische Gesellschaftstheorie sowie kulturwissenschaftliche Ansatze ihre Zustandigkeit etabliert. Die Wirtschaftswissenschaften sind uber eine Aufarbeitung des Themas in den Kategorien des internationalen Standortwettbewerbs kaum hinausgelangt. Die Rechtswissenschaften haben uberhaupt erst zogerlich begonnen, die einschlagigen Entwicklungen einer „Globalisierung des Rechts“ anzusprechen. Die politikwissenschaftliche Bearbeitung der Globalisierung hat ihre Expertise entlang zweier globaler Entwicklungstrends und deren Wechselwirkungen untereinander etabliert. Auf der einen Seite hat sie die verschiedenen Facetten eines Wandels von Staatlichkeit aufgezeigt. Neben einen relativen Bedeutungszuwachs der „Gesellschaftswelt“ gegenuber der „Staatenwelt“ (Czempiel 1991) tritt dabei ein Ausbreiten gesellschaftsweltlicher Muster in der Staatenwelt selbst, die von neuen offentlich-privaten Hybridformen von Politik durchdrungen wird (vgl. z.B. Voigt 1996). Vor dem Hintergrund des weltwirtschaftlichen Strukturwandels konnte zusatzlich die relative „Entstofflichung“ als wesentlicher Entwicklungstrend identifiziert werden, d.h. die zunehmende Tertiarisierung der globalen Okonomie und eine damit verbundene zunehmende Abkopplung der globalen Finanzmarkte von realwirtschaftlichen Entwicklungen und sozialen Rahmenbedingungen (Altvater/Mahnkopf 1996). Der Relevanzverlust und Formwandel des Staates auf der einen sowie die Bestimmung weltwirtschaftlicher Prozesse durch ortsungebundene globale Finanzmarkte auf der anderen Seite wirft eine Reihe von Problemen fur die Moglichkeit der politischen Steuerung wirtschaftlicher Prozesse wie auch im Hinblick auf die Verlagerung von Entscheidungskompetenzen in demokratisch nicht legitimierte nichtstaatliche oder aber nur mittelbar demokratisch legitimierte supra- oder zwischenstaatliche Instanzen auf. Dabei verliefen die politikwissenschaftlichen Bemuhungen, die aus den Umbruchdiagnosen resultierenden neuen Rahmenbedingungen fur politisches Handeln zu benennen, bislang uneinheitlich. Neu ist, das sich die unterschiedlichen Problemformulierungen und Losungsvorschlage nicht mehr ohne weiteres den Kategorienmustern hergebrachter theoretischer Groskontroversen fugen. Zu komplex erscheint die Qualitat des globalen Umbruchs, als das er sich ohne weiteres in die Koordinatensysterne der Grundsatzdiskussionen zwischen System- und Handlungstheorie oder zwischen universalistischen und partikularistischen Demokratietheorien einfugen liese. Diese Grundsatzdiskussionen selbst konnen heute kaum noch forschungsleitend wirken. Wenn heute flexibel-kooperativ steuernde Elemente und Operationsmodi eines Verhandlungsstaates neben die des hierarchisch entscheidenden Staates treten (Voigt 1995; Marin/Mayntz 1991), wenn netzwerkartige, dynamische (Mehrebenen-)Systeme die Aufgaben gouvernmentaler und intergouvernmentaler Entscheidungsfindung ubernehmen (vgl. Jachtenfuchs/Kohler-Koch 1996) und wenn allgemein mit immer weniger und anderen Formen von Regierung regiert wird (Czempiel/Rosenau 1992), dann sind vorrangig Zugange zur Steuerungsproblematik gefragt, welche die Starken der verschiedenen Ansatze synergetisch zu verbinden vermogen.

Bringing sociology to international relations: world politics as differentiation theory

1. Introduction: differentiation theory and international relations Mathias Albert, Barry Buzan and Michael Zurn Part I. Sociological Perspectives: 2. Rationalized cultural contexts of functional differentiation George M. Thomas 3. The history and systematics of functional differentiation in sociology Rudolf Stichweh 4. Functional, segmentary, and stratificatory differentiation of world society Richard Munch Part II. On the Differentiated Structure of the International System: 5. Differentiation: type and dimension approaches Jack Donnelly 6. Stratificatory differentiation as a constitutive principle of the international system Lora Anne Viola 7. Some quanta of solace: world politics in the era of functional differentiation Stephan Stetter Part III. On the Interplay of (Global) Function Systems: 8. Functional differentiation and the oughts and musts of international law Oliver Kessler and Friedrich Kratochwil 9. International institutions in a functionally differentiated world society Mathias Koenig-Archibugi 10. Functional differentiation, globalization and the new transnational neo-pluralism Philip G. Cerny 11. Conclusion: differentiation theory and world politics Michael Zurn, Barry Buzan and Mathias Albert.

Einleitung: Weltstaat und Weltstaatlichkeit: Neubestimmungen des Politischen in der Weltgesellschaft

Es gibt keinen Weltstaat und es wird auch in Zukunft keinen solchen geben. Jedenfalls nicht, solange man unter einem „Weltstaat“ einen modernen Nationalstaat mit globaler Ausdehnung versteht. Diese Vorstellung eines Weltstaates, welcher wesentliche Funktionen moderner Staatlichkeit in sich bundelt, beherrscht die Diskussionen um die Wunschbarkeit eines solchen Weltstaates in der politischen Philosophie seit geraumer Zeit und liegt den meisten Diagnosen zugrunde, welche empirisch keine Herausbildung eines derartigen Gebildes erkennen konnen. Die Frage, ob ein Weltstaat im Entstehen begriffen ist, oder ob sich die Staatenwelt hier als resistent erweist, wird bis heute regelmasig gegen den Weltstaat entschieden.

World State Brunkhorst’s ‘Cosmopolitan State’ and Varieties of Differentiation

This article discusses Hauke Brunkhorst’s account of cosmopolitan statehood. In order to demonstrate its novelty in comparison with other diagnoses of world statehood, the article first sketches out some core ideas on the concept of a world state. This sketch then serves as the basis in order to more closely recall and assess Brunkhorst’s account of the evolution of ‘cosmopolitan statehood’. The article then proceeds to argue that although there is nothing substantially wrong with Brunkhorst’s diagnosis, the hopes he invests in cosmopolitan statehood are probably too optimistic. This optimism results from the fact that he buys too deeply into Luhmann’s rather undercomplex account of functional differentiation in world society. A more nuanced differentiation theoretical account of contemporary world politics reveals a greater variety of forms than suggested by the simple juxtaposition between particularist and cosmopolitan forms of statehood. This also leads to caution against overblown optimism when it comes to the integrative performance of the latter.

Introduction: World state futures

In some contrast to the traditional and ongoing normative discussions about the desirability of a world state, new and more explicitly geo-historical questions about world political integration are being posed, especially (i) whether elements of world statehood are in existence already, (ii) whether a world state is in some sense inevitable, and (iii) whether, and under what conditions, a world state would be sustainable? For instance, the existing and emerging structures of global governance, of a global public sphere and global constitutionalism can be argued to converge to form at least nascent forms of world statehood. Building on and complementing such diagnoses of existing forms of world statehood, the question arises about whether there are possible and likely, or even inevitable, futures in which the emergence of more ‘thick’ forms of a world state, understood as a more tightly and substantially integrated expression of political community, could evolve. This possibility raises further questions about the legitimacy, viability and sustainability of such a state form. After a brief overview of these issues, the Introduction provides a preview of the following contributions of this special issue as well as the distinction between the ‘global’ and the ‘world’ as one possible future research trajectory in the present context.