National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium

Defining a Place in a Changing World

Michael Grossman, Francis Schortgen, Gordon M. Friedrichs

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000541175
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium examines the transformation of the international system through an examination of the role conceptions adopted by the different global actors.

Advancing current role theory scholarship in International Relations, the contributors take as their starting point the question of how international actors are responding to the reordering of the global system. They reflect on the rise of new actors and the reemergence of old rivalries, the decline of established norms, and the unleashing of internal political forces such as nationalism and parochialism. They argue that changes in the international system can impact how states define their roles and act as a variable in both domestic and international role contestations. Further, they examine the redefinition of roles of countries and the international organizations that have been central to the US and western dominated world order, including major powers in the world (the US, Russia, China, Britain etc.) as well as the European Union, NATO, and ASEAN. By looking at international organizations, this text moves beyond the traditional subjects of role theory in the study of international relations, to examine how roles are contested in non-state actors.

National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium is the first attempt to delve into the individual motivations of states to seek role transition. As such, it is ideal for those teaching and studying both theory and method in international relations and foreign policy analysis.

1Introduction: Defining Roles in a Polycentric World

Michael Grossman, Francis Schortgen and Gordon M. Friedrichs

DOI: 10.4324/​9781003092506-1

Introduction

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in an international system based on the prominence of American power and focused on promoting liberal economic and political development (Ikenberry 2011). Since then, it has become apparent that the post–Cold War “liberal” world order that characterized international relations (IR) has begun to unravel. Although some contest how immediate and consequential this change is and others look for the change of leadership in Washington to reestablish the “liberal’ world order (Brooks and Wohlforth 2016; Norrlof 2018; Ikenberry 2020), the fact remains that in the early 21st century, the post–Cold War international order was being challenged on a variety of fronts (Johnson 2007; Mandelbaum 2016; Mearsheimer 2001; Kagan 2018).

While many identify the relative decline of US power as the driving force in the deterioration of the post–Cold War global order, we contend that a confluence of event and crises, including the relative decline in US power, have undermined the established system. These include a resurgent Russia and a rising China, both of whom began to demonstrate a willingness and readiness to assert their national interests and/or push back against Western influence on a geostrategic level—notably in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the South China Sea. This trend is coupled with a series of economic calamities—including the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, the Great Recession of 2007–2009, and the subsequent Euro-zone debt crisis of 2010–2012—that has effectively undermined the dominance of the Washington Consensus in the global economic system. The Arab Spring, meanwhile, unleashed forces that strained Western institutions, as migrants, fleeing the resulting conflicts, stressed intra-European Union relations. This was capped by a global resurgence of populism and economic nationalism (Judis 2016; López-Alves and Johnson 2019), leading many countries to focus on making their own nation “great again,” often at the expense of the established international order (Norris and Inglehart 2019).

This edited volume is an effort to elucidate the changing nature and evolving dynamics of the 21st-century international order. Using role theory as a conceptual lens, it provides insight into how the myriad of developments that are rocking established global structures are not only triggering changes in the behavior among a range of international actors struggling to redefine their place in the new global order. In this regard, this book contributes to the wider IR literature by shining a light on how various international actors respond to crises that are driving the unraveling of a unipolar international system. By contrasting the behavior of different actors, this volume aims to explain the differing responses to the changes.

Furthermore, it adds to the development of role theory by illuminating the impact the international system can have on role transition. In doing this, it bridges the wider literature on how system structures impact state behavior and the role theoretic framework. It expands and builds on the literature identifying the variables that have been previously described as impacting the development of national role conceptions (NRCs) (Holsti 1970; Walker 1987; Le Prestre 1997; Thies 2010). More specifically, where most of the past work has focused on the impact of the domestic variables as well as alter-casting by outside actors in determining NRCs, this volume treats the structure of the international system as an influencing variable. This is further combined with an examination of the individual motivations of states to seek role transition as systemic change provides opportunities for some actors to enact roles independent of the dominant structures and forces other actors to adapt to changes, they may not anticipate or, necessarily, desire.

Systemic Change, State Behavior, and the End of the Unipolar Moment

Shifts in the international system are bound to impact how states define their relationship and roles in the international system (Hermann 1990). The connection between systemic changes and changes in state behavior has long been recognized. Because of the anarchic nature of the international system, states must always be aware of the distribution of power within the system. The state's relative position is determined by its relative capabilities vis-à-vis other states (Gourevitch, 1978; Waltz, 1979).

The material structure of the international system determines the function of the system (Waltz 1979) and influences state behavior by limiting the foreign policy options available to states. At its most basic level, a state's material resources will determine its relative position within the system (Morgenthau, 1960). As noted by Alexander Wendt (2000: 166): “material conditions do have at least two constitutive effects on their own…The first is to define physical limits of possibility…The second constitutive effect is to help define costs and benefits of alternative courses of action.” At the same time, the nature of the international order, including the current state of polarity, creates certain constraints, or rules of the game, rewarding certain behaviors and punishing others (Waltz 1979).

The structure of the international system not only influences the external behavior of states but also the internal organization. As Peter Gourevitch (1978: 896) notes: “The anarchy of the international environment poses a threat to states within it…This state of war induces states to organize themselves internally to meet these external challenges.” This is especially true when these changes supersede traditional standard operating procedures and security plans and assumptions (Goldman, 2001).

Furthermore, the structure of the international system, by limiting the options states see as available to them, will invariably configure the domestic debate that takes place within the foreign policy decision-making community as well as the wider population. Central to influencing the domestic foreign policy debate, and particularly relevant to this volume, is uncertainty as an essential feature of the international system (Goldman 2001). The uncertainty that exists in the international system makes calculating relative power and the respective roles of different actors difficult. As a result, states must always be cautious about any potential miscalculation that would put them at a disadvantage (Morgenthau 1960).

The changes in the international system over the past decade—the relative decline of U.S. hegemony, the rise of new power centers globally and the declining confidence in established institutions, whether the European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or the United Nations (UN)—increase uncertainty by reducing the salience of established norms and impacting previously determined methods of communication. In addition, shifts in the global distribution of power increase uncertainty for states, undermine previous relationships and influence the understanding of who one's friends, enemies, or rivals are. This uncertainty is further enhanced with the rise of new, although less powerful, competitors to the established balance of power, such as North Korea, Iran, and Turkey. “With uncertainty over the identity of future adversaries comes ambiguity in capabilities against which one must prepare, particularly whether one should prepare for an adversary with similar or dissimilar capabilities” (Goldman 2001: 45). During such periods, the ground becomes fertile for domestic contestation of national security doctrines as “society struggles to redefine itself in terms of a new ‘other’” (Goldman 2001: 61).

Current international uncertainty has been buttressed by domestic variables such as the rise of political ideas that challenge the dominant “liberal” order (e.g., nationalism or authoritarianism) or changes to previous identities, or the growth of new political forces within society that challenge established norms of a state's foreign policy behavior. In the past decade, the global rise to prominence of nationalist/identity politics has dramatically increased international uncertainty. Indeed, identity-driven politics and the rise of right-wing nationalism will likely increase instability, both regionally and internationally (Choi and Moon 2010) and lead states to redefine their roles in the international system.

Consequently, a feedback loop is created in which structure and agent interact to influence changes in both. Changes in the system, whether perceived or actual, which are viewed as either undermining the current benefits some states receive or providing an opportunity for other states to increase the benefits they receive, may trigger a reevaluation of NRCs. Once role conceptions begin to change, upward pressure is placed on the system as “[a]gents affect the international system through their actions or choices…” leading to further downward pressure as “…the system in turn affects all the agents” (Chaudoin et al. 2015: 303). A clear example of this is presented by Valerie Bunce (1993) who argues that the ideational changes undertaken by Gorbachev in the mid-1980s within the Soviet Union fundamentally changed that country, restructuring the alignment of threats, and thus that of enemies and allies, internationally. Figure 1.1 illustrates this dynamic.

Figure 1.1 System-agent relationship in national role conception formation.

The changes witnessed over the last decade are bound to (re-)shape the discourses, values, norms, and identities of states (Makarychev 2014). The goal of this volume is to examine these changes and understand how the changing international order has led various international actors to redefine their place in the transforming international order. In trying to appreciate this process, role theory proves useful for examining what is happening by providing a set of conceptual tools for understanding the behavior of states (Breuning 2019; Tewes 1998). By taking into consideration the expectations of states expressed by domestic political actors that integrate many of the idiosyncratic variables that might influence their foreign policy, including national capabilities, wealth, national identity, ideological proclivities, and the psychological variables that can influence perception and individual choice (Walker 1987: 2) as well as international influences, role theory helps to bridge the structure-agent gap (Breuning 2011).

Role Theory in the Study of Foreign Policy Change and International Social Structures

Role theory is particularly suitable to assess the potential changes in foreign policy strategy and behavior by international actors in light of systemic changes and uncertainty (Walker 1987; Thies and Nieman 2017). We build on this research and propose a theoretical model that conceptualizes the above-mentioned sources of uncertainty in the 21st century as role adjustment pressures. Various crises of international order and a simultaneous relative decline in the US's ability to influence global events affect states’ role location (either achieved or ascribed by great powers) as well as the external role expectations vis-à-vis those actors through alter-casting. International pressures can also trigger (or are oftentimes caused by) domestic pressures in the form of political opposition or institutional role interactions that condition whether a state's role is compatible with domestic expectations. We assume that domestic role adjustment pressure is shaped by the degree of support/opposition in the existing NRCs vis-à-vis international order structures and significant others. Furthermore, we argue that international role adjustment pressure is conditioned by the level of autonomy/dependency of the state's role vis-à-vis the i...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Endorsements Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of contributors
• 1 Introduction: Defining Roles in a Polycentric World
• Section I National Roles
• Section II Institutional Roles
• Index