|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 01/07
A Presentation of Emanuel Adler's Concepts of Integration
By Cornelia Beyer
Abstract
The main target of the brainwork on security community formation within international relations theorizing is to prevent violence between nation states. In order to do so, the realist idea of systemic anarchy, wherein nation’s survival constitutes the interest of the actors and self-help becomes the ultimate means, shall be overcome. The problem with self-help in the presence of universal mistrust and the absence of coordination is, it may lead to provident violence in the instant of uncertainty. Most critical are situations of systemic change.
The ideal is to transform the realist image into an alternative model of reality, built on the idea of community, where the rationale for the individual state in pursuing its own interest of security is to cooperate, at least to coordinate with others. From this redefinition of social reality there should follow the development of mutual dependent expectation of peaceful change, i.e. the mutual assured deployment of peaceful – coordinative and cooperative - instead of violent means in pursuit of the individual (i.e. the national) interest. That in turn is leading to a highly increased probability of absence of interstate violence in case of change within the international order, the place where it is feared the most.
This is one approach to designing security community formation as a means to peaceful change shortly drafted. Many others do exist. In this paper I will take at look at the conceptions that are contributed by Emanuel Adler concerning the issue of security community building. He made an ongoing attempt to develop a stylized description of the processes and factors leading to deep integration, security community suchlike understood, which in turn is the base for the dependable expectation of peaceful change. My aim is to track his stream of thinking in order to get a roadmap on the development and evolution of deep integration to provide an outline of his work. For this purpose I will present and compare three models he developed in works from the years 1997 to 2001. They stand in sequence and are built upon each other. The argument he made in 1997 takes the second place after his presentation in union with Michael Barnett from 1998. This is intended, as the state of the argument was chosen as ordering principle and not the chronological termination of publishing.
Full Text (PDF, 20 Pages, 86 KB)