Security Cooperation theories and Organisation Post-WW2

Question 1

What was the situation in immediate Post-war Europe?

Answer 1

• Germany: Germany portrayed as aggressor which psychologically divided European citizens
• What polity?: Questioned as to what kind of polity certain states wished to be
• Ironic Peace Preaching: Highlighted the ironic display of countries wishing for peace and portraying Germany and Japan as the aggressors, whilst attempting to maintain colonies abroad

Question 2

Who were the ‘winners’ post-WW2 and who dictated this?

What kind of ‘cooperation’ grew Post-WW2?

Answer 2

• Actual winners: SU, UK, US, Fra, Ita, Can and other smaller states
• Portrayed Winners: Large focus on the ‘winners’, a term dictated mostly by that of the UK and US
• Soviet threat: Growth of Soviet threat led to American dominance within Europe as Europe unable to provide its own protection
• Questions asked: Was America going to become a hegemony of Europe? Or was Europe and US to be seen as equals? ‘Cooperating’ or ‘Dominance’?

Question 3

Why was the topic of cooperation mostly untouched before, during and directly after WW2?

Answer 3

• Realism: Realism dominated the study of IR, a study which focuses on self-help within an anarchic world which has not order to maintain it
• Security dilemma: Cooperation for realism stems only from the security dilemma, therefore limiting its ability to explain why and how states cooperate

Question 4

When did the movement away from realism occur to study international relations?

Answer 4

• Keohane: Around 1984, with Keohane being one of the first to outline that in actual fact cooperation occurs when actors adjust their behaviour to the preferences of others through a process of policy coordination (which balances/counters on the SD)

Question 5

What theories better help to understand cooperation?

Briefly outline the study of each with one named scholar attached

Answer 5

• Constructivism

(Karl Deutsch)
States become Interdependent through integration whereby fighting becomes improbable

(Emmanuel Adler)
Collective identities: Socially constructed cooperation due to shared meanings, interactions and collective identities… (good for explaining EU)

• Modernist Constructivism

(Christoph O’Meyer)
Explain security cooperation

• Functionalism
  Needs beyond the state: Common interests/needs beyond the state (cooperation further than simply just the state next to you)
• Neo-functionalism
  (Ernst Haas)
  Regional spillover: Emphasis on regional e.g. Europe and states next to you, spillover/contagion whereby policy changes snowball (e.g. EU integration since ECSC)

2 types: institutional spillover and functional/political spillover

• Intergovernmentalism
  Return to traditional theories
• Liberal Intergovernmentalism
  (Moravcsik + Kronsell)
  Strengthens rather than weakens: Combination of neoliberal institutionalism (whereby institution works as arbitrator, whereby EU would work as a and intergovernmentalism whereby integration will be acceptable to states only as long as it strengthens rather than weakens their control over domestic affairs

Question 6

What was the EDC?

Answer 6

• Suggested Post-WW2 whereby European states would integrate defences so that communities may not fight one another and they could protect from outside attacks
• Pleven Plan (1950): Drafted by Jean Monnet whom suggested a European Army which was an integration of European states’ military

Question 7

Why did the EDC fail?

Answer 7

• Lack of faith in German troops
• UK not keen due to it seeming to be anti-atlanticist (did not include US), which led to French parliament vetoing the originally French orientated idea

Question 8

What led up to the creation of WEU?

Answer 8

• 1947: Dunkirk Treaty (DT)
• 1948: Brussels Pact on European Collective Security (signed by Benelux countries, UK and Fra) (BPECS)
• 1952: EDC (FAILED) (EDC)
• 1954: London and Paris Conferences which led to WEU (L+P C)

Question 9

What were the main reasons for the WEU to go ahead?

Intergovernmental or Supranational?

Answer 9

• Fear: Soviet Fear Driven
• Eye: Including of Germany to keep an eye on it
• Support: Supported by US through NATO
• Trial: Trial run for EU and was maintained till around early 2000s, but was not spoken of much
• Intergovernmental

Question 10

When was the Council of Europe created and what did it have in mind?

Main Achievement?

Answer 10

• Founded 1949 with an integrationist agenda whereby ‘Europe’ was defined very broadly (rule of law, human rights, European culture)
• Inclusion of many more Eastern states
• Main achievement: ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)

Question 11

Outline of the OSCE (Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe) and its focus?

Is it still effective as a security actor?

Answer 11

• Same as CE: whereby v. broadly outlines what consists of ‘Europe’
• Soft: Focus on soft and human security in and outside of its MS (Its members work on early warning systems of crisis management, prevention, etc)
• Depends on definition: Effectiveness depends on how one defines ‘security actor’ - does it simply mean military strength to intervene? or can one define it as preventing conflict through diplomatic means?

Question 12

What is the founding argument of Helen Milners piece on International Theories of cooperation between nations?

Answer 12

• Game theory: Uses game theory (study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation of rational decision-makers usually through relative or absolute gains) as a means of explaining why states cooperate
• Looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the types of literature revolving around international cooperation

Question 13

What were Milners findings?

Strengths?

Weaknesses?

Answer 13

• Cooperation essential: Post-WW2 cooperation has become essential to international system

Strengths:
- Common definition of what cooperation consists of so makes it easy to identify when cooperation is occurring

• Balanced distribution of gains helps lead to agreement
• Different capabilities: Actors with different levels of capabilities prove more amenable to cooperative agreement

Weaknesses:

• Assumption of anarchy as controlling international cooperation is falsified and actually some factors depend on domestic, international and singular actors (e.g. anarchy does not determine whether relative or absolute gains dominate motives, rather, it depends on the domestic character of states and other issue areas)

Question 14

What is the founding argument of Annica Kronsells piece on the masculinities and femininities of EU on integration theory?

What does she argue the CSDP is dominated by?

How does she presume EU masculinities and feminises are constructed through the EU?

Answer 14

• Relevance of feminist analysis: To argue the relevance of feminist analysis of European integration through a focus on gender power in relation to gender identity constructs. It is a vital contribution to providing dissident voices in theorising the EU in times of crisis.
• EU CSDP as masculine
• EU masculinities and femininities are constructed through EU relations to other states in the global context and in EU policy-making and institution-building

Question 15

Define masculinity and femininity

Masculine norms?

Answer 15

• Terms to identity characteristics, values and meanings related to gender. In society, those tied to masculinity have been generally seen as superior to those associated to femininity.
• Masculine norms ignored in integration theory and too much focus on feminism e.g. women rights, leaving masculine power to simply reproduce

Question 16

Conclusions drawn from Kronsell’s piece?

Answer 16

• EU protector masculinity shown to be dominant in CSDP
• Many ‘gender silenced’ sections within EU
• It is in the variations and differences between and within gender regimes in sectors, that the resilience and power of gender binaries is maintained
• Likely to be differences between gender regimes in multi-level governance context of eu, between states and between regional and local areas
• European integration is a process whereby EU masculinities and feminities are constructed through eu relations in different sectors of EU-policy making and institution building, through the formation of gender regimes.

Question 17

What are the 3 ways Milner supposes cooperation comes about?

Answer 17

• 1. Tacit: cooperation (the idea that cooperation is not achieved through explicit agreements and instead naturally occurs)
• 2. Explicit: agreement (Signed agreement)
• 3. Imposed: cooperation (hegemonic stability theory whereby a more powerful state forces other states to alter preferences)

Question 18

Kronsell: The Power of EU masculinities- Core Arguments

Answer 18

As Kronsell argues previous integration theoies have not yet addressed gender power and that when gender is included it studies the policy implicatiosn of European integration on gender equality with a focus on womens working conditions and care responsibilities and rarely considers the ways in which gender relations are reproduced in European integration through masculine norms and gender power.

As Kronsell points out the purpose of this article is to argue the relevance of feminist analyssi for academic scholarship in the study if European integration through a focus on gender power in relation to gender identity constructs.

Question 19

Kronsell: A Feminist Contribution to Integration Theory

Answer 19

For Feminsit Theory, power relates to difference and identitiy; the change aspired for is a post-patriarchical society, and feminist theory can be both critically and analytical and normative. The gender viewpoint provides the critical position, while it is normative in the sense that feminism seeks to eliminate gender inequalities.

Gender is relational; hence, masculinites and feminists emobodied in men and women do not exist independently, only in relation to one another. Gender is a key social category expressed in material conditions, but also an organising principle in social and political systems at various levels.

.The strength of feminist analysis of European integration lies in its understanding of how power hierarchies rooted in gender are operationalized in political practices, organized and embedded in institutions.

Question 20

Kronsell: EU masculinity and global politics

Answer 20

According to Manners EU masculinity is relevant to global political relations through a masculinie myth about the weakness of EU power in world politics…here Europe is demasculinised because it has chosen not to use military means, and is associated with Kants perpetual peace while relying on skills such as co-operation and communication characteristics associated with feminity.

Historically, military masculinity has influenced how masculinity has been understood, but it was challenged after the Cold War as economic masculinity became more dominant. Due to the significance of globalized economic trade and co-operation to EU global affairs, economic masculinity seems significant in EU global relations.

Question 21

Kronsell: Instiutions and Gender Regimes

Answer 21

Institutional processes and practices reproduce gender inequalities. While this has been overlooked in feminist scholarship on the EU until recently in other contexts feminists have pointed to the importance of institutions in the production of gender and gender inequalities.

Gender power inequalities are expressed as institutional barriers that are reinforced over time, as they are ‘deeply embedded in organizations and dominant modes of political action and understanding’

Question 22

Kronsell: Gender in CSDP

Answer 22

Through a textual analysis of the official documents of the CSDP in which I employed a feminist methodology that interprets texts and searches for binary constructions around feminine and masculine identities, I found silence on gender. There was no mention of men or masculinity; women and gender were defined outside the CSDP. I interpreted this as evidence of gendered path dependency that naturalizes the association between men, masculinity and military matters

The dominance of male bodies in the military organizational landscape of the CSDP is noticeable, yet it is rarely discussed or raised as an issue. Historic consistency is retained as the organizations rely on Member States’ foreign and security structures. These are part of Member States’ gender regimes that are dominated by male bodies that connect military activities with men through rules of access. Historically, military activities have been exclusively for male bodies and related to masculinity ‘across virtually all societies’, giving military masculinity a universal character.

Men are likely to be in charge of the policies and operations of defence and security activities. This is evident in the EUMC, the CSDP’s highest military body, composed of the chiefs of defence or high commanders: every one of them is a man.

Moreover, other central norms associated with gender path dependence in military regimes, such as discipline and hierarchy, are inscribed materially on male bodies through medals and insignias. The masculinity represented in the EUMC is the ‘EU military man’, a masculinity associated with the rank and hierarchy of the Chiefs of Defence.

Women are not present as military decision-makers or actors. Female EU citizens should nevertheless be part of the CSDP, even though their bodies are excluded: the gender binary suggests we should expect femininities to be present in the CSDP because ‘the protector’ always needs someone to protect.

Through the deconstruction of binaries ‘the protected’ emerged in CSDP texts as the ‘EU homeland femininity’ that is protected by the ‘EU military man’. She does not engage in security and defence policy and she has no agency in the CSDP. As the protected one, she accepts subordination with gratitude and admiration for the security offered by her protector, the ‘EU military man’.