348
Arctic Yearbook 2015
also Adler and Barnett admit (ibid.: 54), initiate and foster the learning process which is needed for all
sides, to learn from and about one another’s motives and behaviours. It is this knowledge about the
other members, which creates trust and the conviction that a member of a security community can,
regardless of the current actions of others, expect peaceful change (ibid.: 54 f.). In a most ideal case,
this is achieved by a merger of identities, values, meanings and long-term interests, something Adler
and Barnett would call ‘tightly coupled’ security community (ibid.: 56).
However, it is also important to point out that direct relations are nothing to be measured in
quantitative terms, something which Adler and Barnett’s use of the term ‘many-sided’ seems to imply.
Purely counting the number of direct encounters appears to be simplistic and thus inaccurate, as it
simply assumes that every interaction
automatically leads to merging
perceptions and expectations in security
shared
identities,
spheres. Much more emphasis should
values, and
meanings
thus be put on a qualitative assessment
of these contacts.
Methodology
This section shall provide some brief
answers to the most important
methodological considerations in this
article. These mainly include aspects of
operationalization, case selection and
empirics.
Operationalization
many-sided
and direct
relations
Security
Community
commonly
shared
long-term
interest
Figure 1. Key Elements of Security Communities
(based on Adler & Barnett 1998).
The actual operationalization of indicators on highly normative theoretical concepts, such as security
communities, is probably one of the most difficult aspects of conducting research. Measuring or even
identifying ‘many-sided and direct relations,’ ‘shared identities, values, meanings’ as well as ‘common
long-term interests’ is a highly delicate and normative task and will remain vulnerable to controversial
debate and disagreement. Thus, the used operationalization in this article will also not claim to be
inviolable to critique. Moreover, this article tries to increase the reliability and validity of its findings
in two ways. First, it will rely on the established operationalization of Amitav Acharya’s study on a
possible security community in Southeast Asia (2014). Second, it will present the line of argumentation
in the most transparent way possible. Building upon an established framework appears also most
reasonable in light of the article’s limitations in scope.
Since many-sided and direct relations have been identified as a necessary pre-condition for the
formation of security communities, these will form the core point of departure for the assessment of
security communities. Nevertheless, since states in today’s globalized world are able to meet and
interact in numerous international venues, the analysis of this article will put special emphasis on
official governmental forums which are Arctic-specific.
Schaller