Legitimizing Global-Regional Cooperation: Discursive Frictions and the Success of Multilevel Security Operations
Final Report Abstract
This project investigated to what extent different stakeholders view cooperation between global and regional organizations as an appropriate approach to solving transboundary security issues. The landscape of international peace and security governance is in flux as new actors from the Global South enter a field that used to be dominated by the United Nations (UN) and the major Western powers. Many policy-makers and researchers promote cooperation between the UN and regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a key to better peacekeeping, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance. However, the actual track record of joint initiatives is mixed at best. In particular, expectations that a neat security ‘architecture’ with a clear division of labour between global and regional actors would eventually materialize have not been fulfilled. Analysts often call for more dialogue, better coordination and capacity-building for organizations from the ‘developing world’ to solve such cooperation problems. But the roots of the dysfunctionalities often run much deeper. The project unpacked how different understandings of responsibility and authority in matters of peace and security shape the relations between global and regional organizations. It analyzed and compared how different stakeholders assert their ideas of legitimacy and contest those of others, focusing on two sites: joint UN-AU peacekeeping in Darfur and disaster relief involving UN agencies and ASEAN in Southeast Asia. The main finding is that while global and regional actors often have an interest in joint solutions to security issues, they are also protective of their public image. As long as they see both goals as mutually reinforcing, cooperation can be rather seamless. However, when an involved organization feels that cooperation is detrimental to its overall authority, or because different organizations want to appear legitimate in the eyes of different constituencies, conflicts can arise. In such cases, actors prioritize their interest in ‘self-legitimation’ over collective interests. The project’s research shows that the changing global political landscape of today, where the seeming consensus around the liberal world order is faltering, makes frictions of this sort ever more likely. These findings are relevant for political decision-makers dealing with international security. In the past, experts have often suggested creating cooperation frameworks that assign clear roles and responsibilities to the UN and its regional partner organizations. However, under current conditions, such rigid ‘architectures’ are unlikely to find consistent support among all involved parties. Instead, flexible ad hoc coalitions forming around concrete security problems will become the new norm.
Publications
- (2019): Global-Regional Security Cooperation in a ’Multiplex’ World, in: International Relations in the Age of Disruption: Power Shift, Power Diffusion and New Complexities. Proceedings of the International Postgraduate Students Conference IPGSC 2018, Universitas Indonesia, 14–15 November, Depok, pp. 15–18
Kilian Spandler
- (2019): Saving Face while Saving People? The AHA Centre and the Regional Humanitarian Architecture in Southeast Asia. GGS Annual Conference “Beyond Western Liberalism: Mapping Blind Spots in IR Norms Research”, Giessen, 2–3 December
Kilian Spandler
- (2020): Lessons from ASEAN’s Rakhine Response. East Asia Forum, 5 February
Kilian Spandler
- (2020): UNAMID and the Legitimation of Global-Regional Peacekeeping Cooperation: Partnership and Friction in UN-AU Relations. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 14(2), 187-203
Kilian Spandler
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2020.1725729)
