The legitimate use of force is generally presumed to be the realm of the state. However, the flourishing role of the private sector in security over the last twenty years has brought this into question. In this book Deborah Avant examines the privatization of security and its impact on the control of force. She describes the growth of private security companies, explains how the industry works, and describes its range of customers – including states, non-government organisations and commercial transnational corporations. She charts the inevitable trade-offs that the market for force imposes on the states, firms and people wishing to control it, suggests a new way to think about the control of force, and offers a model of institutional analysis that draws on both economic and sociological reasoning. The book contains case studies drawn from the US and Europe as well as Africa and the Middle East.

/pdf/the-market-for-force-the-consequences-of-privatizing-5c49yh8dsn.pdf

The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security

http://ecite.utas.edu.au/106335/1/Cvitanovic%20et%20al%202015.pdf

Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision- makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: A review of knowledge and research needs

Why did Western European states agree to the enlargement of the EU and NATO? Frank Schimmelfennig analyzes the history of the enlargement process and develops a theoretical approach of 'rhetorical action' to explain why it occurred. While rationalist theory explains the willingness of East European states to join the NATO and EU, it does not explain why member states decided to admit them. Using original data, Schimmelfennig shows that expansion to the East can be understood in terms of liberal democratic community building. Drawing on the works of Jon Elster and Erving Goffman, he demonstrates that the decision to expand was the result of rhetorical action. Candidates and their supporters used arguments based on collective identity, norms and values of the Western community to shame opponents into acquiescing to enlargement. This landmark book makes an enormous contribution to theory in international relations and to the study of European politics.

The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric

In this theory note, I address two new approaches in international relations theory gaining adherents and producing insightful applications: practice theory and relationalism. Practice theory draws attention to everyday logics in world politics. It stresses how international actors are driven less by abstract notions of the national interest, identities, or preferences than by context-dependent practical imperatives. Relationalism rejects the idea that entities—like states and international organizations—are the basic units of world politics. It replaces them with a focus on ongoing processes. Noting similarities in their arguments to those advanced by early constructivists, I argue that, taken together, practice theory and relationalism represent the New Constructivism in International Relations (IR). A practice–relational turn became necessary because the meaning of constructivism narrowed over time, becoming tied to a specific scientific ontology focusing on the role of identity, norms, and culture in world politics. This ontology unduly narrowed constructivism’s theoretical lenses, which practice theory and relationalism productively reopen.

Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism

This article explores the concept of “human security” as an academic and fledgling policy movement that seeks to place the individual—or people collectively—as the referent of security. It does this against a background of evolving transnational norms relating to security and governance, and the development of scientific understanding that challenges orthodox conceptions of security. It suggests that human security is not a coherent or objective school of thought. Rather, there are different, and sometimes competing, conceptions of human security that may reflect different sociological/cultural and geostrategic orientations. The article argues that the emergence of the concept of human security—as a broad, multifaceted, and evolving conception of security—reflects the impact of values and norms on international relations. It also embraces a range of alliances, actors, and agendas that have taken us beyond the traditional scope of international politics and diplomacy. As a demonstration of change in international relations, of evolving identities and interests, this is best explained with reference to “social constructivist” thought, in contradistinction with the structural realist mainstream of international relations. In a constructivist vein, the article suggests that empirical research is already building a case in support of human security thinking that is, slowly, being acknowledged by decision-makers, against the logic of realist determinism.

Human Security and Constructivism

Constructivism in the study of world politics is little more than a decade old, yet in that short time it has risen to challenge realism and liberalism as a leading approach in international relations. Its ascent has been dramatic. One prominent theorist recently suggested that constructivism has now replaced Marxism as the main paradigmatic rival to realism and liberalism. While this particular judgment might be debated—other scholars may wish to defend the continued relevance of a revived Marxist or socialist approach, for example—the fact remains that constructivism has reshaped many core debates in international relations theory.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0260210599001230

David Dessler

Papers

Constructivism within a positivist social science