Obligacions tributàries principals

The second type of security community is the pluralistic security community. This type of security community is different from amalgamated security community wherein it ‘retain[s] the legal independence of separate governments’ (Deutsch 1957: 6). This means that two or more separate governmental units which form a security community retain their legal independence without being merging under a single, larger government. Political communities within a pluralistic security community possess similar core values, mutual identity, loyalty, and a sense of “we-ness”, however they retain the legal independence of separate governments and their supreme decision-making power (Deutsch 1957: 6). Pluralistic security communities indicate that the member states voluntarily cooperate collectively, adhering to peaceful resolutions of conflict, and eliminating the possibility of war, while at the same time retaining their independence and political autonomy.

In a pluralistic security community, the basic premise which indicates the emergence of such community is the elimination of war. War has become less attractive and improbable among the members of political communities. Deutsch points out three reasons behind the absence of war among members of pluralistic security communities. First, war became less attractive because members are apprehensive of the major destruction and devastation war may cause the states (Deutsch 1957: 115). Second, war becomes improbable because of the risk of

21

international entanglement that could expend the warring states. For instance, inter state war may lead to great power interventions imposed as a deterrence against war between the two states (Deutsch 1957: 115). Interventions of several great powers will aggravate the war, therefore states are likely to refrain from war through every possible means to avoid international conflicts. Third, war becomes unattractive because it is not within the interest of domestic politics of all (Deutsch 1957: 116). For instance, although there is a political strain between two conflicting states, however war becomes unthinkable and not even an option to resolve the disputes. Rather, states will adopt a peaceful means to settle the conflicts. In sum, the absence of war within this period indicates the presence of a pluralistic security community between the states.

In order to form a successful pluralistic security community, there are three important conditions required to achieve it. According to Deutsch, the first essential condition for the success of pluralistic security community is the compatibility among the primary political values of the member states (Deutsch 1957: 66). For instance, two states with similar types of regimes are more likely to form a community among themselves, as opposed to states with different political ideologies. Sheehan, nevertheless, argues that ideological compatibility itself is not sufficient as a condition for a security community (Shehan 2006: 28).6 Later generations of security community theorists have attempted to explore the possibilities of security communities formation among non-democratic states (Sheehan 2006: 28). In addition, it also indicates the absence of any incompatible values which motivate the political behaviour of the political units. In other words, the compatibility values implies that members of the political community agreed to a set of socially accepted values that makes them become attached to each other.

6 _{Sheehan gives an example of how states with similar political ideologies are not sufficiently able}

to form a community. Although sharing the same political values, Turkey and Greece however failed to form a stable democratic regime during the Cold War and failed to become part of security community, which at the time was a characteristic of other NATO states (Sheehan 2006: 28).

22

Second, there should be an established network of political and other communications, to provide a sufficient and immediate response towards member states’ messages and needs without resorting to physical force (Deutsch 1957: 66). The key of this conditions is an increase in the responsiveness in the process of decision making. The capacity of members to respond to each other’s messages implies not only that they have received the messages, but the members also understand and consider the messages for their political decision making (Deutsch 1957: 67). Good communication is crucial in the security community to hinder any distrust and sceptical feeling between members of the community. Deutsch (as quoted in Adler) stressed that communication is the pillar of social group and political communities. He asserts that communication alone enables a group ‘to think together, to see together, and to act together’ (Adler and Barnett 1996: 66). Through communication processes and transaction flows between peoples, it instills a sense of community not only among elites, but also among the peoples (Adler 1998: 174). Third, a successful pluralistic security community exists when there is a successful dynamic interaction of the first two conditions. It requires mutual predictability on the relevant aspects of each partner’s political, economic and social behaviour which can be acquired from similar political cultures (Deutsch 1957: 67). In short, states who shared similar values are able to understand each other’s behaviour better because it reflects the resemblance between them. Similarly, communication networks are able to provide the states an idea and predictable picture of the other (Sheehan 2006: 29).

In sum, security communities focus on the interstate practices and transnational forces that build up the confidence among the member states to settle their differences through means other than war. Core principles in security communities therefore dictate how states govern their domestic behaviour in ways that are consistent with the community. The essential conditions of a security community is the elimination of war, but a peaceful means as a way to resolve disputes and conflicts between the community members. Existence of war or military action signals the breakdown of the community. Those states that form a security community have created a stable order and peace. In spite of a lack of

23

acceptance for the concept of security communities during the Cold War, the concept has been revived after the end of the Cold War. Constructivist scholars have been at the forefront of the revival, using Deutsch’s concept to grasp how social processes and international community may transform international politics (Adler and Barnett 1996: 72). Security communities formed after the Cold War are more relevant and suit security politics as they acknowledge the social character of global politics, identities, interests, culture, values and norms. In sum, this section explored the origins of the concept of security communities as formulated by Karl Deutsch and analysed the two kinds of security communities. In the next section, I will delve into the advanced concept of security communities as proposed by Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett.