Learning in Modern International Society: On the Cognitive Problem Solving Abilities of Political Actors

157 Pages·2008·1.42 MB·English

by  Claudia Hofmann (auth.)

JJ_Ti-B-Hofmann_15635-4 11.09.2007 08:57 Uhr Seite 1
Claudia Hofmann
Learning in Modern International Society
JJ_Ti-B-Hofmann_15635-4 11.09.2007 08:57 Uhr Seite 3
Claudia Hofmann
Learning in Modern
International Society
On the Cognitive
Problem Solving Abilities
of Political Actors
JJ_Ti-B-Hofmann_15635-4 11.09.2007 08:57 Uhr Seite 4
Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der
Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
<http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.
.
1.Auflage 2008
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
©VSVerlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWVFachverlage GmbH,Wiesbaden 2008
Lektorat:Monika Mülhausen /Marianne Schultheis
Der VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften ist ein Unternehmen von Springer Science+Business Media.
www.vs-verlag.de
Das Werkeinschließlichallerseiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.Jede
Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist
ohneZustimmungdes Verlags unzulässig und strafbar.Das gilt insbesondere
für Vervielfältigungen,Übersetzungen,Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspei-
cherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen,Handelsnamen,Warenbezeichnungen usw.in diesem
Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,dass solche
Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten
wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Umschlaggestaltung:KünkelLopka Medienentwicklung,Heidelberg
Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung:Krips b.v.,Meppel
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier
Printed in the Netherlands
ISBN 978-3-531-15635-4
Acknowledgements
Writing this book can only be described as a lasting experience that demonstrated
to me the value of knowledge and analytical understanding as much as the enor-
mousimportanceofpersistence,discussionand friendship.Itisinthismind thatI
wanttothankthefollowingpeople:
Prof.Dr.AndréKaiser,forallowingmetofollowmyownideas;
Dr.AnnettePrzygoda,forbeingawonderfulcolleagueandagreatfriend;
KarenSchmidt,forpresentingmewithtruefriendshipandeternalsupport;
andDr.RebekkaGoodman,ChristieMims,andEllenandJamesSharmanfortheir
helpespeciallyinthefinalstages.
Aspecialthankyougoestomyfamilyfortheirsupport.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction:LearninginModernInternationalSociety........................11
1.1.1 PurposeoftheStudy....................................................................................15
2 ConstructingInternationalPolitics........................................................17
2.1.1 ActorAutonomy:RationalismorConstructivism?................................19
2.1.2 StructuralExamination:IndividualismorHolism?................................21
2.2 NormsandValuesasSocialStructure....................................................................23
2.2.1 ExternallydrivenNormsandUnitsofAnalysis.....................................24
2.2.2 InternationalSocialisationandtheDiffusionofNorms.......................26
2.3 LearninginInternationalPolitics.............................................................................29
2.3.1 CausalImpetusesforLearning...................................................................30
2.3.2 ProgressinInternationalPolitics?.............................................................32
2.3.3 ADefinitionofLearning.............................................................................33
2.4 Requirements...............................................................................................................35
2.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................36
3 CasesofInternationalLearning.............................................................37
3.1.1 PositivistQualitativeDesign:ProcessTracing........................................37
3.1.2 CaseSelection:Similarity.............................................................................38
3.1.3 OperationalisationofCasesofLearning..................................................40
3.1.4 LimitationsofProcessTracinginSimilarCases.....................................40
4 TheWorldBankandGlobalPovertyAlleviation...................................43
4.1.1 GlobalPovertyTrends................................................................................43
4.1.2 TheGlobalPovertyConcernbefore1945...............................................45
4.1.3 PovertyAlleviationinInternationalPolitics............................................46
4.1.4 PovertyAlleviationStrategiesasLearningProcess................................48
4.2 PrimaryLearning:TheDevelopmentofPovertyAlleviationInitiatives..........50
4.2.1 FromProvincialPhilanthropytoanInternationalConcern.................51
4.2.2 BrettonWoods..............................................................................................53
4.2.3 FromEuropeanRecoverytoDevelopmentandPovertyAlleviation.55
4.3 SecondaryLearning:AdoptingGlobalPovertyAlleviation................................60
4.3.1 Nation-StatesandAnti-PovertyCommitment........................................62
4.3.2 WorldConferencesandNon-GovernmentalAid..................................64
4.3.3 ‘MakePovertyHistory’................................................................................67
4.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................70
5 GlobalGovernanceandtheInternationalCriminalCourt.....................73
5.1.1 GlobalGovernanceinthe21stCentury....................................................73
5.1.2 TheInternationalCommunitybefore1919.............................................74
5.1.3 InternationalJurisdictioninInternationalPolitics..................................76
5.1.4 InternationalJurisdictionasLearningProcess........................................78
5.2 PrimaryLearning:ConsolidatingInternationalJurisdiction................................80
5.2.1 LegalUniversalisationandtheRegulationofWarfare...........................81
5.2.2 TextualExpansionandInternationalCrime............................................84
5.2.3 InstitutionalDeepeningandtheConsolidationofKnowledge............87
5.3 SecondaryLearning:PromotingGlobalGovernance..........................................90
5.3.1 StateModalitiesofImplementation..........................................................91
5.3.2 CooperationwithRegionalandInternationalOrganisations...............94
5.3.3 ASocietalCoalitionforanInternationalCriminalCourt.....................96
5.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................98
8
6 GlobalCivilSocietyandthePreventionofArmedConflict..................101
6.1.1 TheChangingFaceofWarfare................................................................101
6.1.2 TraditionalGlobalThreatsbeforetheEndoftheColdWar.............103
6.1.3 CivilConflictPreventioninInternationalPolitics................................105
6.1.4 CivilConflictPreventionasLearningProcess......................................107
6.2 PrimaryLearning:TheEvolutionofCivilSocietyOrganisations....................109
6.2.1 CivilSocietyfromServiceOrientationtoPoliticalInvolvement.......110
6.2.2 TheInternationalCrisis(Alert)Group...................................................113
6.2.3 ExpandingtheFocus:CrisisWatchandEarlyWarning......................116
6.3 SecondaryLearning:AcceptingNewSecurityThreats......................................119
6.3.1 UtilisationofInternationalCrisisGroupInformationbyStates.......121
6.3.2 InternationalOrganisationsandGlobalCivilSocietyPartnerships..125
6.3.3 GlobalCivilConflictPrevention.............................................................127
6.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................129
7 Findings:ChangingandAdaptingInternationalNormsandValues...133
7.1.1 FromIdiosyncrasiestoGeneralisations..................................................135
7.1.2 Tensions,ContradictionsandObstructions..........................................138
7.1.3 NormsandValuesinInternationalSociety...........................................140
7.2 CognitiveProblemSolvingthroughLearning.....................................................142
7.3 LearninginInternationalRelations.......................................................................145
Bibliography................................................................................................151
9
1 Introduction: Learning inModernInternationalSociety
Learningininternationalrelationsisbynomeansaneworgroundbreakingnotion.
The bell for the contemporary round of discussions was rung with the end of the
Cold War when scholars sought to explain the unpredicted transformation that
tookplaceintheSovietUnion.Today,theoldUnionmadewayforanewunionas
manyof the formerEasternbloc states becomemembers of theEuropean Union.
Yet, learning as a means for explaining policy changes or transformations that at
first glancecontradictrational expectations of actors’interests isstill underdiscus-
sion. And as the fate of the former Soviet Union keeps moving, so do develop-
ments in learning theory. A modern theory of learning would have to exceed the
nowessentiallyhistoricalcasestudiesofindividualpolicychangeofthe1990s.Par-
ticularly the end of the Cold War has opened the world political stage for a new
generationofactors.Adiversificationoflevelsofinteractionandobjectsofregula-
tion implicates the rising importance of international organisations, transnational
networks, sub-state units of regulation, public-private partnerships and topically
specialised non-governmental organisations onatransnational stage.Scholarsrefer
toagrowingtransparencyofnationalborders,thedevelopmentofaninternational
society or the formation of a global society (Brock/Albert 1995, Bull 1977, For-
schungsgruppe Weltgesellschaft 1996) as well as the development of global gov-
ernance or global statehood (Kommission für Weltordnungspolitik 1995, Mess-
ner/Nuscheler1996,1999,Shaw2000).
Accordingly, in suchan interconnected world withan uncountablenumberof
actorsthequestionoflearningininternationalrelationshaschanged.Ithasmoved
from whether political leaders learn from historical experience and whether the
lessons of history influence their foreign policy preferences and decisions (Levy
1994: 279) to whether collective actors learn from historical experience and
whether the lessons of history influence policy decisions of all collective actors,
even those that did not experience the lesson directly. In this sense, the claim that
modern international society learns matters for at least two reasons: Firstly it im-
plies a variety of actors and is not restricted to states as sole decision-makers in
international politics; instead it incorporates allactorsshaping modern global soci-
ety, such as states, international organisations and an emerging global civil society.
Secondly,thestudyof learningpresentsa means ofanalyticallyaddressingchanges
or transformations in global politics that surpass individual policy changes. Given
theconsistenciesandchangesininternationalaffairs,bothaspectsbecomeincreas-
ingly relevant while single actor approaches and theories on individual learning
havebecomealmostoutdated.
Butthisdoesnotmeanthewheelhastobereinvented.Scholarsofearlylearn-
ing theory like Lloyd Etheredge and Ernst Haas have laid the foundation stone of
incorporatingadefinitionoflearningintointernationalrelationstheory.Theirwork
on integrating complex understandings grounded in realistic attention to detail
(Etheredge 1981, 1985: 143, Long 1981) and the utilisation of new knowledge to
redefine the content of national interest (Haas 1980: 390) still form the basis for a
definition of learning. Following thistheoreticaloverture, scholarssought toapply
these early assumptions to the distinct challenges of the time and found claims of
learning in international relations to be of apparent importance. Timid first steps
were undertaken by scholars such as Joseph Nye, William Jarosz, and the many
contributors to George Breslauer and Philip Tetlock’s edited volume by analysing
whether the US or the Soviet Union, respectively, were undergoing learning proc-
esses in their foreign policy (Breslauer/Tetlock 1991, Jarosz/Nye 1991, Nye 1987,
Tetlock 1991). Later, Janice Gross Stein joined their ranks with an analysis of the
US-Soviet and Egyptian-Isreali accommodation processes (Crocker/Hampson
1996, Stein 1994, 1996a, 1996b). What these analyses found was that changes in
national interest, and thus, in policy behaviour, depended on changes of political
elites, for whom a learning process implied that practices or interests become ille-
gitimatethroughthedevelopmentofknowledgebystudyorexperience.Thescien-
tificgainforlearningtheorywasconsiderablebutoftentooanalyticallyproblematic
to apply empirically: Some of these first-wave studies equate learning with policy
change. Others fail to differentiate learning from alternative sources of policy
change, such as structural adjustment, evolutionary selection or mere political
change.Somescholarsdesiredtoestablishempiricallycorrect ornormativelydesir-
able lessons to delineate learning. Most of them fail to conceptualise collective or
even shared learning and concentrate primarily on individual learning. And some
fail to differentiate genuine learning from rhetorical or strategic use of historical
experience(Levy1994:282).
In an attempt to accommodate some of these problems, individualist ap-
proaches tolearninghavedeveloped valuablewaystomodelsocialinteractionem-
pirically. Applied game theorists have examined patterns of learning in iterated
prisoners’ dilemma games and in sequential games with incomplete information
(Axelrod 1984, Powell 1990). Utilising Bayesian updating, information is acquired
through strategic interaction, where the players observe other agents’ behaviour
and then, at some later point, use their newly acquired information to update be-
liefsabout otheragents (Checkel2001: 561). Whatthese approaches cannot grasp,
however, is everything that is not strategic or rational, which human and social
behavioursooftenis.
12