Theories of Regionalism in International Relations Lecture 1 Asst. Prof. Fabrizio Tassinari, PhD

1. Theories of Regionalism in International Relations Lecture 1 Asst. Prof. Fabrizio Tassinari, PhD [FT@ifs.ku.dk]

2. Structure: • How to define a REGION • How to Categorise a REGION • How to understand a REGION • How to explain a REGION • - Neo Realism • - Liberal theories • - Globalist Approaches • - Critical theories • 5) +++ 1 Region-Building Approach

3. How to define a REGION • A) Unit characterised by territorial vicinity •  contiguity  focus on the geographical aspect (BSR == Japan) • B) ‘Different’ dimension of power, Derrida would say. • It has to do with power • Bourdieu: etymology region •  from regere in Latin  related to the rex = king

4. How to categorise a REGION • Micro-regions: • Administrative units within the State • (such as Catalonia in Spain or Île-de-France in France). • Relevance of these kinds of units for IR theory and practice. • Subsidiarity in EU policy Third level of governance • Euroregions  crossborder cooperation

5. Macro-regions: • Quasi- (or even inter-) continental areas large number of (state) actors • e.g. South America, Africa or Europe. • Relevance for IR: • 1) Geopolitics (e.g. transatlantic relations) • 2) International Political Economy (e.g. EU-China relations)

6. Meso-regions • In between Macro and Micro • Smaller number of actors and more modest territorial dimensions. • May be characterised by a formal agreement among a small number of states • (e.g. Visegrad Group)  aka ‘interstate region’. • More complex combination of state and sub-state units • e.g. the Baltic Sea Region or Mediterranean region.

7. How to understand a REGION “Whereas old regionalism was formed in a bipolar Cold War context, the new is taking shape in a more multipolar World order Whereas old regionalism was created from outside and from above (i.e. the Superpowers sphere of influence) new regionalism is a more spontaneous process from within and from below Whereas old regionalism was specific with regards to objectives (maintaining the blocs of the Superpowers) new regionalism is more comprehensive and multidimensional” (Björn Hettne, 1994) THE MATRIX

8. 5 levels of regionness: • region as a geographical and ecological unit • 2) Social system and relations within the region • 3) Organised cooperation • 4) Regional civil society • 5) Region as an acting subject  highest level

9. How to explain a REGION 4 Theoretical approaches “+ 1” 1) Neo-Realism RATIONALIST/Traditionalist ‘old regionalisms’ 2) Liberal theories 3) Globalist approaches ‘New Regionalisms’ 4) Critical Theories ++ The Region Building approach

10. NEO-REALISM • What is it? Neo-realism focuses on the features of the anarchical international system (Waltz 1979 Theory of International Politics is the most notable statement on the theory) • International arena is a battlefield for power politics •  at stake is the survival of the state (From international structure Outside) • Neo-realism differs from that of the classical realist theorisation • in terms of their consideration of regions. • Realism viewed regions as an “anomaly” • i.e. a sort of unwanted formation that could not be accounted for.

11. The State • The State is the paramount actor in IR for neorealists (From Above) • States always seek to balance the possibility of • failing to maximise their gains with other sorts of payoffs • These gains can also be obtained thanks to international cooperation •  an explanation of regionalism • Neo-realists  regions = similar to alliance formation • ( Walt 1987 The Origin of Alliances).

12. Alliances • ‘A form’ of regionalisation •  state need for instruments to tackle • external political and economic pressures. • Or, alliances  a tool for the improvement of the prospects of states • to gain from the conflictual setting of the international arena.

13. Hegemony • Focus on power-political confrontation • hegemony. Important implications for regions • 1) reaction of weaker states towards the hegemon, e.g. ASEAN (against Vietnam), • the Gulf Cooperation (against Iran), and SADC (against South Africa) • 2) Regions can be constructed in order to contain and • possibly entangle the hegemon (see EEC and West Germany) • 3) ‘Bandwagoning’  weaker states use regional integration • as an instrument to become attached to the hegemon. • 4) Declining hegemony, region is a resource • for the declining hegemon attain its goals

14. Important Aspects of Neorealism to understand regions • Neorealism neglects the domestic level • - within the state and • - within the region • States are rational actors striving to gain benefits • but the endogenous dynamic is not important

15. 2) Liberal theories • “The major developments in the Liberal tradition of international relations theory • in the post-1945 period occurred in studies of regional integration” (Nye 1988, 239) • BECAUSE formation of interests is a blind spot • in neo-realist thinking and is at the heart of liberalism. • Neo-functionalism and liberal institutionalism are the two most significant • ways for explaining how liberalism has filled this gap.

16. Neo-functionalism • Neo-functionalism is different from classical functionalism • because ‘function follows interests’ in the former  rather utilitarian • functionalism, instead is a strategy to achieve peace, i.e. ‘form follows function’ • Ernst Haas is the primary figure for neo-functionalism in the 1960s.

17. Features of Neo-functionalism • Initially for explaining regional integration • Applied to the case of Western Europe (then EEC) • Also here the state is the primary actor • But differently than neorealism, as Haas argued: • “The study of regional integration is concerned with explaining • how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why • they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours • so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty • while acquiring new techniques • for resolving conflict between themselves.” (Haas 1970, 610) • One major consequence of this ‘loss of sovereignty’ of the state • spillover effects • Achievement of beneficial and initially unintended goals •  the more you cooperate regional, the more you get

18. Flaws of the theory Rejects systematic generalisations Opposite of neorealism that “tells us a small number of big and important things” (quoted in Nye 1988, 242). Short-term orientation But its predictions are contingent to empirical evidence and inapplicable in the long term. This makes this theoretical formulation particularly flexible and applicable in various empirical cases. Neo-functionalist architecture is durable as long as its foundations are based on the empirical ground. But what if the ground changes?

19. Liberal institutionalism “Has become the dominant approach […] as far as regionalism is concerned” (Söderbaum 2002, 6-7). Strongly centred on the state  selfish actor seeking to maximise its gains; Yet, it is concerned with the formation of interests. Hence still from above, but inside-out Neo-Realism states fight each other to ensure their own survival, Here states may pursue cooperation with other states  common interests. States then promote formal and informal institutions in order to facilitate the solution of common problems and to coordinate action.

20. 3) Globalist Approach • Globalisation  systemic approach • Globalisation, like neo-realism, is an ‘outside-in’ approach rather than ‘from within’ • rationalist approaches consider regionalism as the result of ‘problems to be solved’ • Globalist approaches focus on the nature and evolution • of the participation of various subjects in the international arena, • How? Globalisation is refers to different things • mobility of people • the flow of capital • the movement of values and ideas • These developments may result in the formation of regions.

21. How do Globalists frame regions?’ These features determines a sort of ‘end of Geography’  different relation to territory it broke Cold War bipolar territoriality (East and West) States as the primary holders of sovereignty Hence: ‘End of Geography’ deterritorialisation But in order to tackle actual problems (environmental disasters, financial transactions, spread of values) you need to have a territorial basis (see ‘glocalisation’)  Hence reterritorialisation Globalisation is in against the formation of regions BUT: the global space needs to reterritorialise in some post-statist way Within this context, globalisation encourages regionalism rather than opposing it

22. 2 examples • Economic cooperation: Global economy • = unregulated expansion of economic interdependence; • social disparities (north-South-South South) • Hence, Global economy fostersdisproportions and inequalities • regionalism intervenes by reterritorialising the global economy to take back some of the political control • 2) Environment  “global” almost by definition • But how to cope more effectively with the specific issues? • (e.g. Chernobyl, an oil spill, etc.)  regions • Two conclusions from here: • 1) Formation and development of regions appears • to be rather function-driven  ‘fortress’ (see EU) • 2) Complementarity of the regionalism and globalisation: • they focus on the same things in different ways.

23. 4) Critical Theories Focus on roots and features of social participation in the regional phenomena. Regions are about inclusiveness and participation Construction of a political community, and this community can result in the construction of a region. Hence actorness in international relations, and ultimately power can rest anywhere (states, groups, individuals) Hence, inside out and bottom up What brings them together: ‘commonality’: cultural, historical and social affinities. As Hurrell explicitly writes, “focus on regional awareness and regional identity, on the shared sense of belonging to a particular regional community, on what has been called ‘cognitive regionalism’. They stress the extent to which regional cohesion depends on a sustained and durable sense of community based on mutual responsiveness, trust, and high levels of what might be called ‘cognitive interdependence’.” (Hurrell 1995, 64)

24. Security community Classic on this is Karl Deutsch (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area Karl Deutsch worked on three major pillars: 1) integration 2) sense of community 3) peaceful change.

25. Security Community 1) INTEGRATION refers to the “attainment […] of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure for a long time, dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population” (Deutsch 1957, 5). 2) ‘SENSE of COMMUNITY’ implies “common social problems must and can be resolved by process of peaceful change” (ibid.). 3) ‘PEACEFUL CHANGE’ is defined as “the resolution of social problems, normally by institutionalised procedures, without resort to large-scale physical force” Shift from the ‘state’ to ‘individuals’

26. Revival This theory was developed in 1957 (IR theory was monopolised by the realist paradigm)  abandoned After the Cold War it was taken up by Adler and Barnett (1998) Security Communities According to them, communities evolve around three basic pillars: “shared identity, values and meanings […] face-to-face encounters and relations in numerous settings […] long term interests and perhaps even altruism” (Adler and Barnett 1998, 31). Regions, are a discursive practice that may vary according to the meanings granted to them and the contexts in which they are used. “Australia is a member of the Western security community even though it resides thousands of miles from the “core” members” (Adler and Barnett 1998, 33).

27. +1) The Region Building approach Neumann: A Region-Building Approach to Northern Europe From the Matrix to the ‘Continuum’ The focus, though is on ‘whose region’ Who tell us how to interpret a region: who says it is old or new? Actors (Politicians-Elites, States, institutions, or also NGOs, Individuals) Tells us how they built a region Regions are constructed by actors Hence “regions are defined in term of speech acts” (Neumann 1994, 59) Utterances  speeches  Discourses (not discourse analysis, not today)