Confrontational and Cooperative Regional Orders

Managing Regional Security in World Politics

Ariel Gonzalez Levaggi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429582394
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book explains cooperative and confrontational regional orders in the post-Cold War era.

Applying a push-and-pull framework to the evolution of regional orders, the book's theoretical section compares regional dynamics and studies the transformation and authority of governing arrangements among key regional actors who manage security and institutional cooperation. This presents a novel approach to comparing non-Western regional orders, and helps forge a better integration between International Relations disciplinary approaches and area studies. The empirical section analyzes Central Eurasia and South America within the period 1989-2017, using case studies and interviews with decision-makers, practitioners and experts. The volume demonstrates that soft engagement strategies from extra-regional great powers and internationalist domestic coalitions framed in a stable democratic polity are forces for peaceful interaction, while hard engagement strategies from great external powers plus nationalist coalitions within democratic backsliding in key regional powers present negative outlooks for regional cooperation.

This book will be of much interest to students of regional security, comparative politics, area studies and International Relations.

1 Bringing the regions back in

The study of the regions in world politics is fundamental to our understanding of how the world works (Acharya 2007). This book seeks to address two questions that are interlinked. The first is concerned with the interrelation between regional orders with the global and local dynamics: How do we understand regional dynamics in a context characterized by the interactions of global and domestic interactions? A second question is linked to regional change: How do we explain regional transformation in world politics? In attempting to answer to these questions, the book presents an eclectic and interactive explanation on regional dynamics grounded in a push-pull framework which focuses on the interchanges among extra-regional powers’ strategies and domestic coalitions in which processes of democratization or democratic reversals in key regional powers matter.

Across the International Relations (IR) literature, the problem of level of analysis has been central to explanations of regional conflict, cooperation, and integration. Systemic and domestic domains provide different accounts by which to assess the dynamics within the Western and non-Western regional worlds. At the same time, competing theoretical approaches have emphasized power (realism), rules and institutions (liberalism), or identity (constructivism) to address the main questions of the regional transformation discipline. In this context, the trajectory and transformation of regions is not only an emerging research topic, but a central issue for the overall literature, both with regard to how it is explained and how these approaches fit in with different levels of analysis. In the world of political dynamics, there have been relevant changes in regional settings in which entire regions have moved from balance of power settings to being peaceful communities (e.g., Europe), while others continue in a permanent cycle of distrust and conflict (e.g., the Middle East). The rest have moved to peaceful improvement only partially, while the achievement of high standards of regional cooperation and institutionalization will be a long haul. At the same time, comparisons between regions have been an emerging research topic for the IR discipline (Basedau and Köllner 2007: 110–111).

Since regions are a central feature of world politics in the post-Cold War era, this book offers a push-and-pull-framework to explain the evolution and transformation of cooperative and conflictive regional orders. As a major argument, soft engagement strategies from extra-regional great powers and internationalist domestic coalitions framed in stable democratic polities are forces of peaceful interaction, while hard engagement strategies from great external powers plus nationalist coalitions within democratic backsliding in key regional powers present negative outlooks for regional cooperation. From a comparative perspective, there are two relevant elements. On the one hand, in cooperative regional orders which have gone through great transformations, negative interactions are only related to methodological differences. Additionally, these governing arrangements have greater autonomy vis-à-vis extra-regional actors and are characterized by horizontal patterns of interaction between key regional actors. On the other hand, major players within conflictive regional orders have suffered from existential threats which usually block the transformation towards a peaceful setting. At the same time, this type of order has limited autonomy in relation to the external great powers, while the regional interactions show a high degree of verticality which leaves the secondary powers the options of either obedience or resistance.

The comparative study of regional orders is grounded on three research motivations. First, literature on regional orders still has a gap in explaining the differences in how cooperative and conflictive regional orders work, based on an interactive approach between systemic and domestic variables. The bulk of the literature on regional order patterns has tried to explain regional dynamics by presenting them as systemic substructures linked to the international structure, such as the cases of the regional security complexes (RSCs) (Lake and Morgan 1997; Buzan and Wæver 2003; Lake 2009) or the regional powers and security framework (Stewart-Ingersoll and Frazier 2012), without considering domestic factors or neglecting issues of the global “low-agenda.” This gap has been partially filled by two seminal studies by Peter Katzenstein, who identified globalization and internationalization as top-bottom process under the American Imperium for the development of porous regions (Katzenstein 2005), and Benjamin Miller, who presents an interactive approach to difference between regions based on extra-regional penetration and the notion of state-to-nation (im)balance (Miller 2007). However, these approaches lacked an understanding on the interaction between extra-regional powers’ strategies and domestic preferences grounded on coalition changes and institutional path-dependence.

Second, the development of an interactive approach can help to better understand regional phenomena in three ways: it helps to analyze regional transformation by enriching the interaction between the “second image” (Waltz 1959) and the “second inversed image” approaches (Gourevitch 1978); it could be integrated within the discussion of regional worlds providing a central mechanism for forging a close integration between disciplinary approaches and area studies (Acharya 2014: 650); it improves the discussion on another two boundaries that define many of the current discussions in social sciences: comparative politics and IR, and regional studies and interregional comparisons.

Third, regarding the empirical research, this book helps to deepen knowledge on non-Western regional orders, filling a gap in the empirical literature on the rising Central Eurasian order, while presenting an innovative comparison with the South American order through a structured and focused comparison.

IR theory and the regional level of analysis

One of the traditional tools to analyze world politics is the levels of analysis approach in which the reality of international politics is divided into different layers from the smallest scale (the individual) to the global environment. International phenomena have a high degree of complexity, so this approach helps us to answer basic questions of any social science (who, what, and how) and to simplify the understanding the multifaceted processes of conflict and cooperation. In early developments, Waltz (1959) identified three layers to explain the sources of war: individual, state, and system, while Singer (1961) presents as an analytical model a division between systemic and sub-systemic level, referring to the national state. Later relevant categorizations were developed by Rosenau (1980), which involves the individual, role, government, society, IR, and the world system, and Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde (1998), that presents the individual, subunits (e.g., bureaucracies), units, international sub-systems and international systems. In the latter approach, an international sub-system means the grouping of units within an international system which can be distinguished by the particular intensity of their interactions (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998). In short, a region sharing common interlinked patterns.

As part of a distinguishable level of analysis, regions are central to explaining world politics, but the definition has been a contested issue. During the San Francisco United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), participants did not reach a proper definition of region, but provided a guide to identify regions in world politics based on the criteria of geographical proximity, community of interests, and common affinities (Graham 2012: 205). This general orientation – expressed in the UN Charter – has been problematized and criticized in the literature while discussions of what defines a region have expanded.

Etymologically speaking, “region” comes from the Latin term regio, which in turn comes from the term rego, which meant “to straighten,” and the verb regere (“to rule”). Then, the meaning of regio was applied to “line,” also meaning “boundary line,” “district,” or “province.” From its early meaning, a region is a division, especially related to governmental administration. Nowadays, a region is a polysemic concept that has been partially defined by several disciplines such as sociology, IR, geography, economy, law, and politics (Tuñón 2013: 1).

As a minimum definition, a region is constructed by a limited number of states linked together by a geographical relationship and a degree of mutual interdependence (Nye 1968) or as a spatially coherent territory composed of two or more states (Buzan, Wæver, and De Wilde 1998: 18–19). Since the early literature on regions, IR scholars have subscribed to the belief that there is no natural region, as geographic/geopolitical arguments suggest. Bruce Russett argues that “there are no regions, or aggregate of national units that can in the very strict sense of boundary congruence be identified as a subsystem of the international system” (Russett 1967: 168). On the same topic, Joseph Nye argues “there are no ‘absolute’ or ‘naturally determined’ regions (because) relevant geographical boundaries vary with different purposes; for example, a relevant region for security may not be one for economic integration” (Nye 1968: vi).

Even if there is a widespread consensus about the “artificial” nature of regions in the IR discipline, area studies do not always see the reality in the same way, sometimes showing a tendency to treat regions as natural constructs (Mansfield 1991; Halperín Donghi 1993). The tension between area studies and the academic discipline is not new. Morgenthau said that “area studies assume that the key to the understanding of a foreign area lies in the investigation of the specific phenomena which make up that area,” while the IR discipline has a more universal approach – based on the political dimension of human nature – that transcends “local” international findings (Morgenthau 1952: 652). In this case, I follow the arguments about the artificiality of the region, while the IR toolbox should be adapted to understand regional dynamics case by case. In sum, “there are no ‘natural’ regions and definitions of ‘region’ and indicators of ‘regionness’ ” since they “vary according to the particular problem or question under investigation” (Fawcett and Hurrell 1995: 38).

Almost an enigma, the concept of the region – and the concepts derived from it – has provoked strong debates with an important degree of overlapping and blurriness, in which “attempts to define and delineate regions ‘scientifically’ produced little clear result” (Hurrell 1995: 334, 2007: 333–338). However, the IR discipline and area studies have reached an agreement that regions are an increasingly salient unit of analysis. Returning to the discussion of the definition of a region and the type of criteria that define it, Russett (1967) focused on a region based on geographic proximity, social and cultural homogeneity, shared political attitudes and political institutions, and economic interdependence, while Deutsch et al. (1957) look to the degree of interdependence across different dimensions. On the other hand, Thompson also recapitulated the literature from a regional sub-systems approach, identifying a list of 21 attributes, of which the most relevant are proximity in a geographic region, patterns of relations that exhibit a particular degree of regularity, interrelatedness, and the internal/external recognition as distinctive area (Thompson 1973: 93). Then, he defines the region sub-system as one in which there are at least two, generally proximate, actors whose pattern of relations or interactions exhibits a particular degree of regularity and intensity, while internal and external observers recognize the sub-system as a distinctive area (Thompson 1973: 101). Later developments also emphasize that regions can be identified not only by geographical contiguity but by other criteria, such as the degree of social and cultural homogeneity; certain common political attitudes and institutions; some degree of economic interdependence; and a sense of shared behavioral patterns (Kacowicz 1998: 8).

Regions are socially constructed and hence politically contested (Hurrell and Fawcett 1995: 39). In this case, the regions have both material and ideational dimensions. They have territory and states but there is something more, sometimes difficult to gather. Regions are “given” by geography and “made” through politics (Katzenstein 2005: 36). Therefore, politics – the authoritative allocation of values in its agonist phase or as a consensus-builder – play a crucial role in the definition of a region. Politics is about resources but also about values. Adapted from T.V. Paul (2012: 4), this study understands a region as a cluster of states that are historically and geographically proximate to each other and are interconnected in security, economic and – sometimes – ideational terms in a significant and distinguishable manner. More specifically, regions are bounded by a common geographic space with historical bonds – conflictive or not – while the relevance of the region is defined by its security externalities, economic cooperation, and a shared identity.

The literature about regions interprets their role in world politics in three different ways. On the one hand, there are those who consider regions to be a product of global hegemony. Katzenstein (2005) explains regions as part of an imperial design, while a more realist account presents regional and global hierarchies as central features in explaining regional dynamics (Lemke 2002; Lake 2009). Within the “regionalism as imperium” approach, the regionalism under the “Pax Americana” only serves the single purpose of the superior power, taking systemic variables as central to explain the regional designs.

The second approach reflects the progressive evolution of the post-Westphalian world order based on the deliberative European model in which institutionalized regionalism, interregionalism, and ultimately multiregionalism shape world politics to different degrees. In this case, regional variables have a more significant role in developing the regional dynamics themselves. The “Pax Europaea” promotes a multipolar system in which “the EU constitutes the hub and driving actor,” whilst the “core of the global interregional complex contains triangular relations” with East Asia and the US (Hettne 2005: 563).

Finally, the third approach includes those who see regions as particular attempts to achieve greater autonomy and say in world politics, in which the regions present some resistance to the international order, transforming the America-led order into a multiplex one (Acharya 2014; Bernal-Meza 2013).

Besides the analysis of the interaction between the global environment and the regions, the literature has also focused on the dynamics within regions with three main approaches: institutionalism, constructivism, and realism. The first branch of the literature focuses on the interaction of economics and political dynamics among different levels of analysis that affect and are affected by regional dynamics. Globalization and internationalization have impacted the whole nature of world politics, while regionalization has influenced the global political economy in a serious manner. The intititutionalist – or regionalist – approach is particularly interested in the creation, design, and effects of regional institutions. The study of regional integration has a long history in the discipline, based on the model of the EU, in which neo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Bringing the regions back in
• 2 Regional orders: push-and-pull mechanisms of regional transformation
• 3 Central Eurasia: from the historical foundations to the age of strong leaderships
• 4 South America: from regional transformation to the decline of the Brazilian-led “South Americanization”
• 5 Transformation, autonomy, and authority: regional orders in comparative perspective
• 6 Regional orders in the Trump era
• Index