Regional Security Institution
Asih Purwanti (presenter) Mely Noviryani (discussant) Reza Triarda (discussant)Adhi Cahya Fahadayna (discussant) Ni Komang Desy (discussant)Yustika Citra (discussant) Anggun Trisnanto (facilitator)
The establishment of regional organizations has been identified in the post-Cold War era. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European Union (EU), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and many more are a few examples. The security issue is, furthermore, one of the components inside these organizations (Bailes & Cottey, 2006). Apart from growing numbers of regional organizations and components, the discussion goes widely into how security is defined and to what extent states in those regions are driven by their motives to cooperate with other states. These are the core questions in this fortnight discussion.It seems that defining regional security institutions is an uneasy task. Discussants have started to question the very basic understanding of ‘security’. Though there are various understandings of how to define security, one of the simplest ways to grapple with is to take that being secure is free of threats that can vary ranging from poverty, and physical attack as well as from crime and risk (Brooks, 2010). It can also be added, as Brooks argues, that security is linear with defense. So, to be freed from those threats, parties (states) are required to have sort of things that are usable for defense. This varies from military capability, economic performance, or human resource and technology. In the similar vein, security points to “some degree of protection of values previously acquired” (Wolfers, 2018)Given the complexity of defining security, the first question posted above is far from settled. One argument in the discussion presents that a regional security institution is a sort of arrangement among parties to agree on objectives (that part of it is on being secure from any threats) that apply in the specific region. This ‘relaxed’ and broad definition is indeed treated as a preliminary point of view before discussing on motives and reasons why the state is willing to cooperate with others in the ‘chaotic’ context of International Relations. At some point, the theories that are available to explain this phenomenon are neoliberalism and realism. It goes further on the neoliberalism institution as a theoretical foundation. Keohane argues that institutionalism in international relations has constrained state’s behavior. In his word,2state actions depend to a considerable degree on prevailing institutional arrangements, which a6ect the flow of information and opportunities to negotiate; the ability of governments to monitor others’ compliance and to implement their own commitments – hence their ability to make credible commitments in the first place; and prevailing expectations about the solidity of international agreements (Neoliberal Institutionalism: Robert Keohane,” 2020, p.157)Thus, institution is vital in international relations as this determines on how state should behave. It goes deeply on the dynamics inside the institution. On one hand, this is about what comes first whether the institutions (organization) or norms. The realist perspective starts with the assumption that organization comes first. This assumption is from basic approach within realist scholars who believe that the core values of international system is military and war (Walt, 2019). Meanwhile, the liberalist comes to the idea that non-military factors are the determinant in the globalized world. Things such as economic cooperation, multilateralism and international institutions become more important (Morgan, 2013). Nevertheless, both approaches may end with the same point of conflict. Another factor for discussion is how a particular theory is in line with the type of threats. Realist is closer to the traditional mode of threat such as war whereas liberal is linked to the non-traditional mode of threat such as technology and climate change.Further questions for discussion:1. How regional security institution is relevant to the current context?2. What is the threat? Should be it tangible and impactful or something else?Neoliberal institutionalism:
Robert Keohane. (2020). In Security Studies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422144-28Bailes, A. J. K., & Cottey, A. (2006). Regional security cooperation in the early 21st century. In SIPRI Yearbook 2006:Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.Brooks, D. J. (2010). What is security: Definition through knowledge categorization. Security Journal, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2008.18Morgan, P.M., 2013. Liberalist and realist security studies at 2000: two decades of progress?. In Critical reflections on security and change (pp. 39-71). Routledge.Walt, S. M. (2019). The Origins of Alliances. In The Origins of Alliances. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801469992Wolfers, A. (2018). National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol. In National and International Security. https://doi.org/10.2307/2145138