Introduction
“Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security” by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver introduces and expands on the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT). The central idea is that global security cannot be fully understood by examining global powers in isolation; one must also consider the interconnected security dynamics within distinct geographic regions. These “regional security complexes” are defined by patterns of amity (friendly relations) or enmity (hostile relations) that are relatively intense and insular. As such, they become the primary focus for nations within the complex, often overshadowing concerns with major global powers. The book’s significance lies in its reorientation of international security studies, emphasizing the pivotal role of regional interactions and how they interface with global politics.
The most frequently used context in this text addresses the stages of the Cold War. The period before the end of the Cold War was when international security was largely seen through the bipolar lens. This clear contrast created global political alliances and conflicts. However, with the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, a multipolar world began to emerge. New regional powers rose, and existing ones started exerting more influence within their respective regions. The post-Cold War era witnessed the proliferation of regional conflicts, from the Balkans to the Middle East and from the South China Sea to Africa. As these regional complexities increased, so did the need for a theoretical framework that could understand and explain the interdependence of security at a regional level.
What is the RSCT?
The main concept presented in Buzan’s work is that of “The Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT)”. This theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the new structure of international security. It’s complementary to the constructivist theory since it emphasizes the importance of patterns of friendship and enmity.
The authors posit that international security should be examined from a regional perspective, and that relations between states and other actors have regular patterns that are clustered geographically (in regions).
They argue that the regional level is the most relevant level of analysis for security studies, as it exists between the extremes of national security and global security. They define Regional Security Complexes (RSC) as “groupings of close interdependence in security matters at the regional level.” RCSs are not defined by cultural, economic or historical factors, but by the patterns of securitization and desecuritization in the region. These specific security complexes are important because they help us understand how security is produced and reproduced in the world. By studying RSCs, we can learn about the different ways in which actors securitize and desecuritize issues, and we can identify the factors that contribute to the formation and persistence of these systems. “This knowledge can be used to develop more effective security policies and to promote peace and security in the world,” (Buzan et al., 2003, p.43-45; Bard 2023).
Details on ‘the Powers’
The introduction of the book identifies three types of specific regional security complexes: a unipolar RSC where the power in question is a great power (e.g. Russia in the CIS), a unipolar RSC where the power in question is a superpower(for example, the United States in North America), and a RSC made up of institutions rather than a single power (e.g. the EU). The author also analyzes the relationship between standard and focused RSC. They argue that focused complexes can have diverse impacts on the standard ones. The author concludes by analyzing two types of CSR that do not fit into either the standard or the focused category: high-powered and super-complex CSR. High-power RSCs are those in which the polarity of a region is defined by more than one power at the global level.
Supercomplexes are those that arise from having a series of global level powers distributed throughout the system. Supercomplexes are RSCs that unite two or more standard RSCs through the presence of one or more great powers. The author argues that supercomplexes are more complicated and unpredictable than standard RSCs because they involve the interaction of multiple levels of security dynamics (national, regional, superregional and global).
It’s argued that the analysis of supercomplexes requires paying attention to the interaction of all the levels involved (though they continue to see the regional level as most important). They also state that great power alignments in supercomplexes can have significant consequences both regionally and globally. Both RSCs and great power supercomplexes are hybrids of the global and regional levels. However, they should be treated differently from ordinary RSCs for two reasons- 1) its dynamics directly affect balance calculations at a global level, and 2) they create the potential for spillover effects to adjacent regions.
Great powers are likely to project their power into adjacent regions, creating possibilities for spillover and supercomplex formation. Supercomplexes are RSCs that unite two or more standard RSCs through the presence of one or more great powers. Super complexes are more complex and unpredictable than standard RSCs because they involve the interaction of multiple levels of security dynamics (national, regional, super-regional and global)(Buzan et al., 2003, p.53-61).
Critiques of the Regional Security Complex Theory (and in Comparison to other Theories)
| Category | Point of Comparison | Description |
|---|---|---|
| General Critiques | Specificity and Universality | The RSCT might not be universally apt for all regions due to variations in regional dynamics. |
| State-Centrism | The book’s focus on states might seem outdated in an era where non-state actors play significant roles. | |
| Overemphasis on Geography | The geographical emphasis might overlook the impact of globalized communication and trade. | |
| Ambiguity in Defining Regions | Unclear definitions of ‘regions’ lead to debates on the boundaries of security complexes. | |
| Comparative Evaluation | Neorealism | Compared to the neorealist perspective, which tends to focus on the anarchic nature of the international system and the role of great powers, RSCT shifts the lens to regional dynamics. While neorealism emphasizes power politics among major states, RSCT highlights how regional configurations can shape and be shaped by global politics. |
| Constructivism | Constructivist theories emphasize the role of ideas, beliefs, and norms in shaping international relations. In this light, RSCT can be seen as complementing constructivist ideas by highlighting how regional identities and shared norms can influence security dynamics. | |
| Liberalism | Liberal theories stress the importance of international institutions, trade, and democracy in shaping international interactions. While RSCT doesn’t negate these, it posits that regional security dynamics can often override liberal incentives, especially when deep-seated regional rivalries are at play. | |
| Critical Security Studies | From the lens of critical security studies, which often interrogate the very definitions of ‘security’ and ‘threat,’ RSCT might appear limited. However, RSCT’s focus on regional patterns offers a more nuanced understanding than global-centric theories. |
Practical Applications of RCST
Understanding regional security dynamics is essential for policy-making. For instance, by adopting the insights from RSCT, governments can fix their diplomatic strategies to resonate with the specific security concerns and interactions within their region. Recognizing the interconnected threats and alliances in a regional security complex can guide military decisions regarding alliances, procurement, and strategic deployments.
Ideally, RSCT isn’t just about understanding conflicts but also about resolving them. Mediators and negotiators in peace processes can use the theory to find the interconnected causes of conflicts within a region and therefore create more informed and successful initiatives. On the economic front, the interdependent nature of security and economics in a region means that RSCT can identify potential challenges and opportunities that come from regional security dynamics. Organizations can shape their trade and investment strategies more effectively. International organizations can use the theory to investigate deeper into the security concerns of member states, “ensuring that regional policies and initiatives are cohesive, relevant, and sensitive to the unique dynamics of their respective security complexes,” (ChatGPT, 2023).
Conclusions on “Regions and powers: The Structure of International Security”
- Buzan doesn’t elaborate much on essential details. I hope he does later on in the book, the first 83 pages are lacking definitions like what is “Security” and what are “Regions” exactly.
- I agree that the regional level is very important to understanding the international environment of security, but I strongly disagree that there are only centre-periphery actions. Global security threats, in my opinion at least, are superior influences in all other security complexes. Yes, every region has their quarrels with the others and that creates the ‘world order’ but there are currently larger threats such as global warming which affect all regions.
- Even various points in the text make it clear that there IS a world order and global security, yet Buzan and Waever continue to shun the global theories in comparison to the regional level.
- Analyzing the parts of something is effective and key to understand the whole, but without a bigger panorama it’s difficult to put the pieces in perspective. It’s like studying apples but disregarding the importance of the tree.
- I also agree that threats are not purely militant. Anything that puts in risk the survival of an entity (States, regions, organizations, etc.) is a threat. This can be military, economic, political, cyber-tech, natural disasters, resources, etc. and I also believe that all of these can be analyzed from a regional perspective, as well on the individual, state/organizational, and global levels.
References
- Buzan, B., Buzan, B. G., W’ver, O., Waever, O., & Buzan, R. P. O. I. S. C. F. T. S. O. D. B. (2003). Regions and powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.
- Ballin, E. H., Dijstelbloem, H., & De Goede, P. (2020). The extension of the concept of security. En Research for policy (pp. 13-39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37606-2_2
- Bard – Chat Based AI Tool from Google, Powered by PaLM 2. (n.d.-b). Bard. https://bard.google.com/
- ChatGPT. (n.d.). OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/#
- AskYourPDF: The best PDF AI chat app. (n.d.). https://askyourpdf.com/conversations
One response
[…] To dive deeper into RSCT and its application in global politics, check out my previous post: Regional Security Complex Theory by Buzan and Wæver. […]