Does social constructivism really add anything new to debates about security?

Résumé du document

During the late 1980s, when debates between neo-realists and neo-liberals seemed to exhaust them, so-called constructivist researches made their appearance. By asserting themselves as an alternative to realism, they reinterpret its main concepts (power, national interest, sovereignty). Moreover, it introduced issues, then regarded them as to whether they were marginal in International Relations, identity, and culture. The major features of the international system were no longer seen as natural, inherent, or by its structure, but as by-products of social context and the effect of the actors subjectivity. A deconstruction work began in the discipline. In the particular area of security studies, constructivism will question the unquestionable Idol Security. The realist military state-centred empirical focus on security to privilege the security's ontological and epistemological dimensions, and constructivist scholars have also tried to renew security studies. Consequently, it is interesting to wonder, if, by so doing, constructivism really adds anything new to the debates about security. After a presentation of constructivism applied to security studies, it will be easier to evaluate its real contributions to theoretical debates.

Extraits

[...] M. Walt, ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories', Foreign Policy 101, Spring 1998, p. 44. [...]

[...] By so doing, it has thoroughly renewed the debates about security and even become the main competitor of traditional realist approach of the discipline. Besides, beyond its contribution to theoretical debates, that was our focus here, constructivism also has got a ‘real' impact on the re- definition of security policy as for instance proximity between Buzan's societal security and United Nations' human security shows it. Bibliography - Adler, Emanuel, ‘Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in international Relations', Millenium pp. 240-265. [...]

[...] The title of this part refer to the book, which can be considered as the reference book of constructivism applied to security studies, namely, Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole, de Wilde, Jaap, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London : Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998) p. Mainly sociology, philosophy, linguistic, history and anthropology. Indeed Nietzscheian anf Foulcaldian critical philosophies have a great influence on constructivism approach, notably concerning the importance of discourse and the ‘contextualisation' of power. A. Wendt, ‘Anachy is what States make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics', International Organization 46, Spring 1992, pp. 391-425. Mainly John Ruggie, Friedrich Kratochwill, Nicholas Onuf and Emanuel Adler A. [...]

[...] It gets value only if States believe in it. Thus security would be a fulfilling prophecy: anarchy is not an ‘objective', universal and timeless element but a ‘subjective' construction produced and integrated by States since the Westphalian Treaty. In brief, security and anarchy are products of human actions situated in specific historical, political and geographical contexts. Secondly, contrary to neorealists' claims, as determinants of security, ideas and norms are more important than material capabilities.[7] They modify and shape differently the international system's identity through the time. [...]

[...] - Katzenstein, Peter J. The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996) p. - Knudsen, Olav F., ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization', Security Dialogue 32, No September 2001, p. 353- 367. - Krause, Keith, Michael C. Williams Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: Borderlines, University of Minneapolis Press, 1997), pp. 121-149. - Packenham, Robert A., The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in Development studies (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1992) 362 p.) - Walt, Stephen M., ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories', Foreign Policy 101, Spring 1998, p. [...]