Regimes as World Peacemaking and Reduce the Anarchy Condition

According to Hedley Bull, International Order is defined as a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of state or international society. Basing on this definition, Bull emphasizes that order comprises two elements, which are: goal and methodical arrangement. There are six goals of international order: preservation of the state system and the society of state that is essential to protect the prevailing form of political organization; maintenance of the external sovereignty of individual states; international peace; limitation of violence in international interaction; keeping of promise; and stabilization of possession by rule of property. These goals – which he states arise from the common desire to avoid insecurity, unrestricted violence, and instability of agreement- are termed primary because their attainment is critical to the pursuit of higher-order goals of the society of states.[1] Based on that goals, the existence of international order is even more important.

The second element, which constitutes international order is methodical arrangement. The term arrangement in this definition of order refers to architecture for sustaining order –rule, governed interaction- among state. The arrangement for management of international security affairs can be applied through cooperative approach which rooted in consideration of mutual interest with norms and rules playing the central role.[2] Simplifying, this arrangement tells more about building order through cooperation. Started from this background, this writing will focus more on the world-regimes roles in peacemaking and reducing anarchy condition.

The arrangement through cooperation has three pathways. There are collective security, international regimes, and economic interdependence and cooperation.[3] The focus of this writing is international regime as the pathway of cooperation. Regimes support the creation of peace. The international regime pathway relies on principles, norms, and rules as the primary basis of sustaining order. Even when the regime involves military force, the management and application of force are based on accepted principles and norms. Regimes promote order through coordination, collaboration and assurance.[4] This is why regimes have a role in creating world peace.

Regimes arise because actors forge independent decision made in order to deal with the dilemmas of common interest and common aversion. Regimes established to deal with the dilemma of common interest differ from those created to solve the dilemma of common aversion. The former require collaboration, the latter coordination.[5] This is applied in security regimes. Jervis asserts that security regimes are formed only when states have accepted the status quo, when the cost of war is high, and when there is substantial danger of spill-over into other areas. This regime can affect international security interaction in several ways. First, the constitutive function of regimes constrains state behaviour. General constitutive principles such as sovereignty and sovereign equality of states, along with the accompanying norm of non-intervention in internal affairs, safeguard the survival of weak states by naturalizing the sovereign state and outlawing imperialism, colonialism, and other form of domination. Second, arms control regimes like those that limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction help to avoid undesirable outcomes and promote stability. Third, the principles, norms, and mechanisms for peaceful adjustment of dispute present motivated parties with an alternative path to resolve differences and dispute.[6]

Security regimes as the world peacemaking and reducing anarchy factors have found alternative way – collective, comprehensive, common, and cooperative security. First, collective security is shown in the tragedy of the First World War. Charles and Clifford Kupehan explain that under collective security, states agree to abide by certain norms and rules to maintain stability and when necessary band together to stop aggression. As its strong supporter, Wilson was convinced that this approach to security would provide the means to prevent future conflicts. Collective security was formally incorporated to League of Nations as one of its underlying principles. Second, comprehensive security was first formulated in Japan in 1970s. It focuses on political, economic and social problems at different level of analysis and therefore offers an alternative to traditional concepts of security that concentrate exclusively on national defence and external military threats. It assumes that broadening the definition of the term beyond military issues can enhance security. Comprehensive security has also been recognized by some ASEAN states, primarily Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, which focus on socio-economic development to maintain their security condition. Third is common security which seeks primarily to offer an alternative to the use of force. This principle, as defined by the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues under the leadership of Olof Palme, needs to be located in the context of Cold War. It should primary be seen as an attempt to move beyond the strategy of nuclear deterrence. Finally, there is cooperative security which fundamentally differs from collective security. Cooperative security lacks the vehicle of economic or military sanction. It operates, at least in the Asia-Pacific, through dialogue and seeks to address rather than threat. Security should be promoted “with others” as opposed to “against others”.[7]

On the other hand, Robert Jervis tried to analyze the concepts of security regime. It is interesting that the analysis is more focused on neo-realism approach that tries to link the concept of regime security with national security issues. According to Jervis, the security regime that arise because of the relationship between restraint and assess the interests of individuals as an alternative. This occurs because in essence, the regime is not only based on the norms and expectations, but it is a short-term cooperation of individual interests when they joined institutional regime.[8]

Then the pattern of international relations, especially security regime can be seen as a result of national power and space in which there is a choice, creativity, and institutions to restrict the behavior of the actor. Jervis said that the regime is a rational choice such as “Prisoner dilemma” in which actor would not know the choices of other actors in the regime. It was assumed as beneficial and adverse selection, that the most important thing in a rational choice will bring up the completion of “Pareto optimal”. Herz and Butterfield claimed that the regime has policies that bring in “collective security”. Because of the need for security is directly proportional to the human rational mind that security does not bring up the loss in finance and infrastructure. [9] Finally, there are four functions in security approach. The first function, the regime could bring great powers to choose the environment that has been arranged so as to minimize individual behavior. Second, trust between actors and the state will further increase. Third, the policies of the status quo in which the regime can not ensure the security of the best and the last. The latter is a paranoid security based on empirical experience of the actor.[10]

In conclusion, through the analysis, shown that security regimes have a big possibility to become world peacemaking and reduce anarchy condition through cooperation inside. Without regimes, disputes between national interests would be unable to be managed and solved. On the top of that, regimes have a big role to maintain international order.

Reference :

Alagappa, Muthiah.2000.The Study of International Order:An Analytical Framework.Australia:The          Australia National University

Emmers,Ralf .2004.Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF.New             York:Oxford Publishing

Jervis, Robert. 1982. “Security Regime” in International Organization. Spring: The MIT Press


[1] Muthiah Alagappa.2000.The Study of International Order:An Analytical Framework.Australia:The Australia National University, pp.34-35

[2] Ibid, p.52

[3] Ibid, pp.56-60

[4] Ibid, p.58

[5] Ralf Emmers.2004.”The Role of the Balance of Power Factor Within and Beyond Regimes For Cooperation Security” dalam Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF.New York:Oxford Publishing, pp.40-60

[6] Opcit, p.59

[7] Opcit, p.48-50

[8] Robert Jervis. 1982. “Security Regime” in International Organization. Spring: The MIT Press. p. 357-359

[9] Ibid p.359

[10] Ibid p.360-362

About miradialazuba

Hai, my name is Mira and in this blog you will know more about me...about my beautiful life...my adventure, my glory, my poor, my sad...and everything about me...see it...and you have to know that my life is the exciting one :)

Posted on Maret 17, 2012, in Journal of International Relations. Bookmark the permalink. Tinggalkan komentar.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s

%d blogger menyukai ini: