Search

Karl Deutsch and those who have taken up his work on security communities universally acknowledge the relevance of increased transnational interactions as a necessary condition for integration. Yet despite an international system increasingly characterized by globalization, in most cases of increased interaction among states dependable expectations of peaceful change, the defining characteristic of a security community, have not followed. Why has increased transnational interaction led to the emergence of security communities in certain cases but not others? This paper attempts to answer this question by positing a multi-level theory of integration, which asserts that integration is contingent on the mutual identification of self-signifying practices common to intersubjectively differentiated groups, which in turn allows for enhancements in social communication and the development of a higher-order level of collective identity. By focusing on concomitant processes of integration at the regional, state and subnational levels, this theory pushes forward the discourse on security communities by explaining the emergence of new social tensions resulting from changes in the meanings of practices associated with integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has two purposes. First, it investigates in theory how the societal security literature (the Copenhagen School) relates to the principal explanations of intergroup hostility in sociology (status/power threat and labor market competition), socia ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is there a distinct sociology of international relations? What are the innovative contributions of such a sub-discipline to our understanding of world politics? This paper will discuss contemporary, interdisciplinary thinking on the borders between sociol ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

British foreign and domestic security policy towards Islamist extremism since 2001 has been shaped a kind of "secular ambivalence" within the policy process. This ideological phenomena is a by-product of domestic forces, in particular the evolution of British Christo-secularism since the 1960s. This is not confined to the United Kingdom, but is the response of a Christo-secular state to "religious violence" in the late modern period. This paper will lay out the defining characteristics of secular ambivalence as an unofficial ideological position. It will then explore the British encounter with the Mehdi Army in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as an illustrative example of secular ambivalence in action. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latin American countries do not define their security agenda. In fact the regional presence of the United States conditions the security agendas of the countries in the region and their capacity to establish autonomous national policies on the global , regional and sub regional spheres. Nevertheless the regional integration process in the southern cone and the international role that Brazil has been signaling it would like to play since the transition to democracy have allowed the governments of Brazil and Argentina to define some strategic orientations. During the last fifteen years the civil authorities have established some defense and security policies in the absence of direct intervention on the part of the armed forces, in contrast to previous periods. In this paper we shall analyze the conceptual sources incorporated by the political elite in both Argentina and Brazil and the means and resources available for decision making in the security sphere in these countries . We shall investigate the process of securitization in the regional context taking into account the interaction between endogenous and exogenous variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates in security studies in the U.S. and Europe have drifted almost completely apart. In Europe it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, traditionalism and feminism. In the U.S. it is more common to see the major debate within security studies as being the one between offensive realism and defensive realism! Previously, almost all theoretical inventions in IR were made in the U.S. Currently, distinct theories are widely associated with places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies), Paris (Bigo’s Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization). The new European approaches differ not only from security studies in the US, they also stand apart from most work done in other parts of the world. Are these theories peculiarly ‘European’ and if so, why? The paper aims at explaining the emergence of these European security theories. The explanation draws partly on the political context in the different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, International Relations and Security Studies. The theories are also assessed briefly as to their relevance and usefulness. To what extent are they bound to local, European problems or relevant to the issues that are addressed elsewhere and vice-versa for the theories that flourish in the U.S. and the periphery respectively? Can they travel to the other parts of the world in a helpful role? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are pursuing a set of cooperative security agendas similar to those implemented by the participant states of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), namely, confidence-building measures (CBMs), preventive diplomacy (PD), conflict resolution and a set of agendas associated with security communities. This 'Europeanization' of ASEAN's cooperative security can be captured by a perspective founded on sociological institutionalism, the main focus of which is the issue of institutional isomorphism. The pursuit of new cooperative security agendas on the part of the ASEAN members should be seen as a set of instances of their mimetic adoption of external norms for the sake of legitimacy. They have mimetically adopted a set of norms associated with the collective management of conflicts, which have been practiced by the OSCE/CSCE participant states. They have done so, with the intention of securing their identities as legitimate members of the community of modern states, and of enhancing the status of ASEAN and ARF as legitimate cooperative security institutions. This finding gives support to the claim that mimetic adoption for the sake of legitimacy is one of the pathways for norm diffusion. Such a claim leads to policy advice. To facilitate the spread of their conflict-management norms, the European policymakers may work toward the strengthening of the social environment which defines the OSCE as a legitimate cooperative security institution. However, the long-term sustainability of their effort to facilitate the spread of their norms is questionable because 'the West' is in general losing its moral appeal today in the global society. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]