Understanding the Complexities of the Eastern Mediterranean Hydrocarbon Puzzle by Regional Security Complex Theory

This chapter explores the problems of using regional analysis to think through the security agenda of the post-Cold War world. It starts with a summary of traditional regional security complex (RSC) theory, with its military-political focus, and its firm regionalizing logic, and looks at how that view is still relevant in the post-Cold War world. Section 2 surveys the changes in the nature of the security agenda, examining the rise of economic and environmental security, with their new types of threat and new referent objects, and the decline in salience of military-political security issues amongst the great powers. Section 3 investigates whether three of the ‘new’ security sectors — economic, environmental, societal — contain a regionalizing logic, and if so, how it works. Section 4 reintegrates the analysis. It looks at the merits of treating sectors separately, or amalgamating them into single, multi-sectoral security complexes.

This article, initially discussed at a conference organised in March 2017 by the Belgian Commission for Electricity and Gas Regulation (CREG) on the new governance structures in the EU energy sector, deals with energy governance structures in the EU energy and climate diplomacy and in development cooperation between the EU, its member states and third countries.It is understood that, at large, the existing tools of EU energy and climate diplomacy create governance structures: bilateral partnerships, trade agreements, regional and multilateral orders are per se instruments to govern the underlying relationship between the EU, its member states and third countries. The focus in this paper revolves around those instruments of EU energy and climate diplomacy which aim at reinforcing energy governance structures (referred to also as institutional and normative energy frameworks) and promoting solid transparent frameworks in the field of energy in partner countries.In particular, the paper aims at identifying – among the existing tools of the energy and climate diplomacy –instruments and opportunities in favour of African countries which contribute to strengthening those institutional and normative energy frameworks and facilitate investment towards universal energy access and energy transition. To do so, the paper reviews the existing policy and legal instruments of EU external energy action in general and in Africa and concludes proposing policy recommendations on further development cooperation and energy diplomacy initiatives in favour of African countries.The first section reviews the principles of EU energy and climate diplomacy and their alignment with development objectives, including the emphasis on strengthening institutional and normative frameworks in the energy sector. The second section considers the internal coordination between the EU and its member states which is necessary to carry out the external energy and climate diplomacy as well as development cooperation. The third section describes the existing tools of the EU energy diplomacy that aim to strengthen energy institutions and frameworks in partner countries. The fourth section reviews a selection of existing EU initiatives in favour of African countries and brings forward a proposal for EU action to reinforce energy governance structures of partner countries in Africa.

This chapter presents an operational version of regional security complex theory (RSCT). RSCT provides a conceptual frame that captures the emergent new structure of international security (1 + 4 + regions): hence our title Regions and Powers . As we have shown, RSCT has a historical dimension that enables current developments to be linked to both Cold War and pre-Cold War patterns in the international system. It contains a model of regional security that enables one to analyse, and up to a point anticipate and explain, developments within any region. RSCT provides a more nuanced view than strongly simplifying ideas such as unipolarity or centre–periphery. But it remains complementary with them, and provides considerable theoretical leverage of its own. In an anarchically structured international system of sufficient size and geographical complexity, RSCs will be an expected substructure, and one that has important mediating effects on how the global dynamics of great power polarity actually operate across the international system. This makes the theory interoperable with most mainstream realist, and much liberal-based, thinking about the international system. In another sense, the theory has constructivist roots, because the formation and operation of RSCs hinge on patterns of amity and enmity among the units in the system, which makes regional systems dependent on the actions and interpretations of actors, not just a mechanical reflection of the distribution of power. Wendt (1999: 257, 301), for example, makes the connection explicit, pointing out that his social theory can be applied to regional security complexes.

This paper presents an analytical framework as an adaptation for the regional security complex theory (RSCT). Following the end of the Cold War, regional systems have become imperative for understanding security dynamics. Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver's expanded version of the regional security complex (RSC) concept described the regional level as the level where most of the action of security occurs. In fact, the RSCT is one of the most comprehensive frameworks that outline distinct variables necessary for regional security analysis. However, the RSCT overlooked how these RSCs (security regions) emerge and evolve into fully fledged security complexes as described by Buzan and Wæver (2003). Thus, the concept remains under-theorized on how the nascent structures of an RSC build—as it prioritizes already established RSCs. In this respect, this study develops an analytical framework with a set of criteria for identifying the nascent stages of an RSC, as an adaptation for the RSCT. The framework examines the nascent structures of an RSC and highlights the roles played by external great powers in the emergence and evolution of RSCs.

Despite areas of synergy, international relations theory has typically considered South and West Asia as analytically distinct. Following the work of Barry Buzan, whose work on regional security complexes is formative in shaping the intellectual debate, the Gulf is considered a subregion of a larger Middle Eastern regional security complex, while South Asia is regarded as its own regional security complex. This article argues that the analytical distinction between these different (sub)regional security complexes has become blurred, reflecting the emergence of a supercomplex. We contend that strong patterns of amity, enmity and securitisation that link the two regional security complexes suggest a thinning boundary between them, with the potential for them to merge. We distinguish between a supercomplex and a merger using the concepts of amity, enmity and securitisation provided by regional security complex theory. We add the English School’s ideas of order, justice and regional society to enhance our understanding. We focus on three issues in which the two regions interact: the Abraham Accords; the Iran nuclear crisis, and Jammu and Kashmir. We argue that increasing relations between the two regional security complexes have resulted in a supercomplex, with powerful states in both regional security complexes seeking to project their power into the adjacent regional security complex. We further note the strengthening patterns of amity, enmity and securitisation connecting the two regions, leading to a thinning of the boundary separating South and West Asia. We contribute to the literature on regional security complex theory by clarifying the distinction between a supercomplex and a merger through the South-West Asian case.

This article revisits Buzan and Waever’s Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), and asks what is the utility of Buzan and Waever’s RSCT framework in understanding African security issues? It includes theoretical insight and criticism of RSCT whilst simultaneously providing an empirical case study of Uganda’s President Museveni within East Africa. It focuses in particular on a period between 2010 and 2015 when East African security dynamics were in flux. The article argues, primarily, that Regional Security Complex Theory can be improved by including a clearer articulation of how African leaders assert influence within, and shape, regional security dynamics in Africa. Doing so allows for a better realization of how Regional Security Complexes come into being. The article draws on over four years of desktop research and over one hundred field-work interviews in East Africa and South Africa with regional security specialists, military personnel, politicians, government officials, journalists, academics, market traders and economists. The paper highlights President Museveni’s uniquely active and influential role in shaping regional security dynamics in East Africa.

One of the chief contributions of the Copenhagen School is that of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT). RSCT assumes that security issues can be grouped around geographically distinct regional complexes and uses the securitization concept to explain dynamics in the security environment within and across regions. However, recent developments in both the security studies field, and with respect to regional and global security, prompt us to reconsider the original theory. Whilst RSCT retains explanatory power and most of its assumptions remain viable, there is an evident need to address revealed deficiencies in the theory relative to changes in the security landscape. Among these are issues related to the contingent nature of RSCT relative to structural changes in the international system (the balance of power, security arrangements on the regional and interregional level, evolving patterns of amity and enmity) as well as its demonstrated inability to account for the variable nature of security threats and threat perceptions. This chapter seeks to address those issues in order to enhance the utility and contemporary applicability of RSCT.

North American Regional Security: A Trilateral Framework? By Richard J. Kilroy Jr., Abelardo Rodriguez Sumano, Todd S. Hataley. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2013. 255 pp., $58.50 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-1-588-26854-9). 9/11 and the Design of Counterterrorism Institutions. By Karlsson Michael. Surrey: Ashgate, 2012. 195 pp., $94.95 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-1-409-43456-6). These books address the question of the development of counter-terrorism institutions from opposite scales. 9/11 and the Design of Counterterrorism Institutions is a microlevel investigation of counter-terrorism policy in Northern Europe in the first weeks after 9/11. North American Regional Security , by contrast, looks at the development of regional security institutions in North America at a macrolevel, over the long term. Reviewing the two books together shows the different conclusions that can be drawn from these disparate analyses, and how they contribute to the research program of understanding counter-terrorism institutions. The first months after 9/11 were characterized by an intensive period of institution building that, in some cases, constituted a significant restructuring of government. Not surprisingly, much of the early analysis of this period was punditry rather than social science. With a decade of hindsight, however, political scientists have begun to use their theoretical tools to analyze the creation, structure, and functioning of those institutional and political changes. These books are part of that research program, drawing on theories about institutional design ( 9/11 and the Design of Counterterrorism Institutions ) and regional security complex theory ( North American Regional Security ). While it would be impossible to expect any single research project to incorporate both a micro- and a macroperspective, the insights from each could be fruitfully applied into the other in order to provide a fuller perspective. Regional security complex theory, which Richard Kilroy, Abelardo Rodriguez Sumano, and Todd Hataley use to analyze North American security, is part of Buzan and Waever's attempt to further integrate the constructivist bent of their securitization theory with the recognition that the regional, and the material, still matter (2003; see also Lake and Morgan 1997). They borrow Buzan and Waever's definition of a regional security complex as “a set of units whose major processes …

This chapter reflects on a number of points about regional security complex theory (RSCT) and its application. The first section reconsiders the validity of the two starting assumptions about security that structured this study: territoriality and the regional level. The next section looks at the comparative element of RSCT, drawing together a series of questions that can be asked about all regions, and taking a first cut at some conclusions based on the present exercise. The third section sums up what we think are the advantages of the regionalist approach to security. Finally, the last section sets out some of the problems that arose for us in applying RSCT. Starting assumptions: territoriality and the regional level of security analysis When we began this project in 1998, the two starting assumptions that structured it were that territoriality still remained a central feature of international security dynamics, and that the regional level was both generally necessary to any coherent understanding of international security and increasingly important in the post-Cold War world. The logic linking these assumptions was that processes of securitisation would be strongly influenced by the fact that most types of threat travel more easily over short distances than long ones, and that this logic remained strong despite the numerous and well-rehearsed advances in technology that have been shrinking the planet for several centuries. How well have these assumptions stood up, both in general and under the specific challenge of international terrorism manifested since 11 September?

Resource discoveries and an emerging maritime arms race in the Eastern Mediterranean have created incentives for an overarching security cooperation framework However, collaboration in the mentioned sectors remains absent and the former regional coalitions have been reconfigured. This article investigates why a lack of cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean persists. In answering this question, Securitzation Theory and Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) serve as a theoretical foundation. Building on the latter theories, seeing the Eastern Mediterranean as a regional security complex leads to the contention that if two or more units of this system securitize each other’s activities within the said complex, this will lead to negative ramifications on regional collaboration. The chosen case is the reciprocal securitization of Turkey and Greece in 2020. Finally, the case study reveals blind spots in RSCT and introduces a new concept to cope with these: the buffer subcomplex.

North American Regional Security: A Trilateral Framework. By Richard J. Kilroy, Jr., Abelardo Rodriquez Sumano, and Todd S. Hataley, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press, 2013.

Chapter 2, the theoretical framework, examines the regional security complex theory. This chapter generally focuses on Barry Buzan’s theoretical logic. The chapter discusses the regional approach to security studies, especially after the end of the Cold War. Then it puts forward the paradigms of regional security complex theory. It details the composition of regional security complex theory and then moves on to analyze the Middle East Security Complex at the macro level and the Maghreb sub-complex at the micro level. By focusing on the composition of the Middle East security complex, this chapter examines social, political and economic patterns of the MESC and its three sub-complexes: The Gulf, Levant and Maghreb. This chapter also draws attention to the relationship among these sub-complexes in the context of state structures, enmity and amity relations, foreign policy approaches to regional conflicts. This chapter also pays a special attention the Maghreb sub-complex as it includes Libya, by analyzing historical background of disputes, state behavior and the power structure.

In the wake of the 9/11 'war against terrorism‘, Bush‘s vision of 'Pax Americana‘ and 'Axis of Evil‘ played a crucial role in shaping the global interactions among states. It resulted in the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition forces, against transnational terrorism. However, almost two decades later, they neither could eradicate terrorism from the global map nor are anywhere close to achieving the Pax Americana. An analytical study in this paper shows that their exit from Afghanistan, even if it is not a complete exit, will not be an easy task without losing a strong geostrategic foothold in this sensitive region where Russia, China, and India are already looking for opportunities to develop their dominance for regional power aspirations. The theoretical model — comprising the theory of complex interdependence and the regional security complex theory — aptly explains the complexity of Afghanistan‘s situation. With regards, this paper focuses on the different facets of conflict resolution in Afghanistan, focusing on Pakistan and China‘s interests and other regional players. China has also emerged as one of the noteworthy players in this context since a peaceful Afghanistan has a long-term impact on the smooth progress of the Belt and Road Initiative. This complex interdependence of multiple players in the Afghanistan peace process has turned it as one of the most thin-skinned and almost unattainable goals. Nevertheless, with various geostrategic and economic interests at stake, we must recognize the efforts being made to bring the peace process to finality.

According to the Copenhagen School's Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), Turkey is an insulator state as it sits at the intersection of different security complexes without truly being part of any of them. This understanding of Turkey's position in the international security realm has offered a welcome contribution to the eternal debate about the country's security alignment between East and West. Turkey has, in recent years, become more active on the international stage, diversifying its relations and taking a more assertive stance regarding international security issues. This shift in its foreign and security policy is related to the country's ambition to become a great power in the near future. However, according to RSCT, it is quite improbable for there to be an insulator state that is also a great power. This article elaborates on the tension between this theory and Turkey's ambitions in an attempt to understand whether and how RSCT remains a useful theoretical framework for the understanding of Turkey's foreign and security relations.

Whether or not India has a distinct ‘strategic culture’ is becoming an increasing important debate, thanks to the country’s growing military and economic strength and her emergence as a major regional power. New Delhi’s current Afghanistan policy can serve as a litmus test. This thesis, within the context of this very debate, raises a fundamental question: What factors have influenced and shaped India’s Afghanistan policy since 2001, and how has Kabul responded? To provide plausible answers, this thesis, by utilizing primary and secondary data collection methods, employs two distinct, yet conceptually overlapping structural theoretical frameworks to make three detailed, equally important and mutually complimentary arguments. First, the study argues that certain aspects of India’s current Afghanistan policy can be traced back to her civilizational as well as contemporary ‘strategic thinking’. The fear of an ‘enemy state’ and the desire to befriend ‘a state that has enmity with the enemy state’ still influences Indian psychology just as it did during the days of the Maurya Empire. Kautilya’s ‘Mandala Theory’ provides the conceptual and theoretical framework for such an analysis. Second, based on Buzan and Waever’s ‘Regional Security Complex Theory’, this research argues that existing structural constraints (the Pakistani factor) and the ‘penetration’ of the South Asian security complex by external powers (the United States) also influence India’s foreign policy options in Afghanistan. Third, the thesis argues that Kabul has failed to ‘institutionalize’ its foreign policy apparatus. As a result the ‘Afghan perspective’ in this debate is quite often ignored and remains under-researched. Unearthing the ‘Afghan narrative’ and understanding Kabul’s strategic responses to New Delhi is necessary in order to gauge the success, or failure, of India’s current Afghanistan policy. Hence, a very significant contribution this thesis makes is a detailed analysis of Afghanistan’s strategic calculus and foreign policy options vis-a-vis India.