Militarism – a mercurial, endlessly contested concept – is experiencing a renaissance of sorts in many corners of the social science community. In critical security studies, the concept’s purview has become increasingly limited by an abiding theoretical and analytical focus on various practices of securitization. We argue that there is a need to clarify the logic and stakes of different forms of militarism. Critical security scholars have provided valuable insights into the conditions of ‘exceptionalist militarism’. However, if we accept that militarism and the production of security are co-constitutive, then there is every reason to consider different manifestations of militarism, their historical trajectories and their interrelationships. To that end, we draw on the work of historical sociologists and articulate three more ideal types of militarism: nation-state militarism, civil society militarism and neoliberal militarism. We suggest this typology can more adequately capture key transformations of militarism in the modern period as well as inform further research on the militarism–security nexus.

The connection between liberalism and war has been a persistent recent focus in security studies. A large critical literature on liberal war has developed, ranging from viewing such wars as predicated on expanding spaces of capitalist accumulation to seeing them as techniques of a global liberal governmentality. However, this critical literature needs to be complemented by an institutional approach to militarism that links liberal war with broader societal dynamics of warfare. The article argues that the concept of 'liberal militarism' provides a means to better historicize and institutionalize liberal war beyond the sharp edge of military interventions, connecting liberal war to broader institutional manifestations of war preparations and war making, which are also fundamentally linked to liberal approaches to modernization. The article uses the example of the United States during the Cold War and after to demonstrate that liberal approaches to modernization were explicitly formulated as key to US foreign and security policy, a form of 'military modernity'. The article further analyses US foreign policy in terms of the military modernity of 'security assistance' in the Obama administration. Seeing liberal militarism through the lens of US-led modernization efforts draws on important insights from the critical literature on liberalism and war, but emphasizes the historical institutionalization of military power as central to understanding its durability. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

Abstract:The article develops the insights of historical institutionalism and cognate work within International Relations to examine the development of security institutions within states, dealing specifically with the development of the National Security Council (NSC) in the United States. The case focuses on the creation and reproduction of the NSC as a means to fostering civil-military coordination within the US state. The article argues that exogenous shocks are crucial in providing the necessary freedom to change existing institutions, which are then set on new contingent paths. Substantively it is argued that World War II and the experiences derived from it provided a critical juncture for the creation of new security institutions such as the NSC, and once created the NSC was characterized by forms of path dependence that have reproduced the institution over time. The article demonstrates how historical institutionalism can clarify causal mechanisms that better explain the origins and durability of internationally-oriented security institutions within states.

Historical accounts of private violence in international relations are often rather undertheorised and under-contextualised. Overall, private violence historically needs to be seen in the context of the relationship between state-building, political economy and violence, rather than through the narrative of states gradually monopolising violence. Pirates and privateers in late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth century Europe were embedded in a broader political economy of violence which needed and actively promoted 'private' violence in a broader pursuit of power. As such, the de-legitimatisation of piracy and privateering were the consequence of a number of interlinked political economic trends, such as the development of public protection of merchant shipping (through the growth of centralised navies), the move away from trade monopolies to inter-imperial trade, and the development of capitalism and industrialism. Present forms of private violence also need to be seen as part of a broader historical dynamic of war, violence and political economy.Historical accounts of private violence in international relations are often rather undertheorised and under-contextualised. A re-examination of the era of European state-building in terms of the relationship between states and private forms of violence can produce important insights about the role and context of private violence in history. Overall, private violence should be seen in the context of the broader relationship between state-building, political economy and violence, rather than through the narrative of states gradually monopolising violence. Otherwise it is all too easy to overdraw lessons from the past. Early modern forms of private violence were linked especially to two factors: the mercantilist global economy and the process of state-building. As processes of state-building, war making, and the pursuit of commerce continued, the eventual consolidation of strong states in Western Europe, with 1 Thanks to Alex Colas, Douglas Bulloch, Benjamin de Carvalho and Halvard Leira and the three anonymous referees for their comments on the original paper, which greatly influenced its current form.