Prompt:
There is a consensus in the literature that no one IR theory (Realism, Liberalism, or Constructivism) serves as a ‘universal ordering principle’ (Adler and Grieve, 2009) that explains why and how sovereign states build and maintain security alliances. Do you agree?
Alliances are when states come together to promote things like security, etc. it is likely for a state to join an alliance for it to cover up or to compromise for what it is missing. As mentioned by Das and Teng in their research, “ In essence, strategic alliances are about accessing resources that a particular firm does not already possess, yet which are critical for improving its competitive position.” (1998) and in an alliance, it is usual that all ends benefit in some given way, and this is also a key player that determines whether a given state is better of joining or staying away from an alliance.
Different states view alliances in different ways. The theory that a state bases its politics and approaches around can, to some extent allow us to make assumptions as to how a state will react in a given situation. And whether it will choose to go with certain alliances or not. Yet the theories only allow as to make assumptions and they do not fully explain why certain security alliances are built.
Let’s take for example the case of Iraq given that it is the only Arab country that shares a border in the Arabian Gulf that is not a member of the GCC. From a realist point of view and looking at it from the perspective of Iraq, Iraq is controversially better off joining the GCC alliance. Given the tensions, it has with states like Iran and the US being part of an alliance that involves big military forces such as the KSA and the UAE can help promote its security, increase its power and benefit its economic motives, and these are all factors that pushes Iraq towards such an alliance. the only drawback is that these other states could get involved in the politics of Iraq and this can threaten its independence. Furthermore, from a liberal point of view, Iraq is also better off joining the GCC since this promotes peace and will assure the continuity of peace in the region. And finally, from a constructivist point of view, it makes sense for both sides (both Iraq and current members of the GCC) to want to work together under the one alliance since they are all state that shares the same identity, they are all Arab, with a Muslim Majority population, they share the same values, traditions, and history. However, despite the fact that all three theories suggest that Iraq would strive and work towards being a member of the GCC alliance, Iraq is still not a part of that alliance. In this case, we can say that these three theories have failed to explain why Iraq is not a member of the GCC. The only counter explanation that could be suggested is that the current GCC members are viewing Iraq joining the alliance from a realist perspective, by thinking that Iraq’s power is diminishing and that there exists a lot of tension between it and the US, hence they are better off staying away from it to maintain good relations with a key player in world politics like the US. however, this still does not explain why they did not ask Iraq to join the GCC when it was it the peak of its power and influence, a few decades ago.
Another example is France not being part of Nato despite being one of its founders. Unlike the case of Iraq, this case could to some extent be explained from a realist point of view. France explained the reasons behind its withdrawal by saying that the US and Britain's powers and influence within the alliance were increasing and that this was threatening the independence of France, and he mainly explained that in terms of military. Furthermore, since liberalism focuses on the individual good and what is better for each state individually alongside the promotion of peace, and since there were tensions in the military field between France and other members of Nato, they were all better off with France leaving, since this will ensure the continuity of peace and will promote France’s sovereignty. And when it comes to constructivism this could also be justified to a given extent. Unlike members of the EU, the members of Nato do not share the exact same traditions, history, etc. given that they are not all based in the same region, and this explains why France did not get along with the other members so well.
Overall, it has been evident that the three IR theories (realism, liberalism, and constructivism) do explain certain alliances, however, they still fail to explain others. There are many other factors that explain alliances such as state size, state power, etc and it is not only these three theories that explain alliance. There are also other theories other than those three theories that were brought up to explain alliances, an example of this is the one suggested by Lavie and Rosenkopf in their research in 2006. Lavie and Rosenkopf suggested the three domains of Exploration-Exploitation in Alliance Formation and these three are Function, structure, and attribute. Hence, it is wrong to create a universal ordering principle explaining why alliances are built and maintained by only basing it on these three theories when many other valid theories still exist.
References
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 797-818.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Resource and risk management in the strategic alliance making process. Journal of Management, 24(1), 21-42.