Collective Identity Formation and the International State

Abstract

The neorealist-neoliberal debate about the possibilities for collective action in international relations has been based on a shared commitment to Mancur Olson's rationalist definition of the problem as one of getting exogenously given egoists to cooperate. Treating this assumption as a de facto hypothesis about world politics, I articulate the rival claim that interaction at the systemic level changes state identities and interests. The causes of state egoism do not justify always treating it as given. Insights from critical international relations and integration theories suggest how collective identity among states could emerge endogenously at the systemic level. Such a process would generate cooperation that neither neorealists nor neoliberals expect and help transform systemic anarchy into an “international state”—a transnational structure of political authority that might undermine territorial democracy. I show how broadening systemic theory beyond rationalist concerns can help it to explain structural change in world politics.

Rethinking European Union foreign policy

“…Are there any constructivist theories available? Once again Wendt (1994) has something to offer. He explains that his constructivist (pre)theory of collective identity formation makes the following core claims: 'states are the principal units of analysis for international political theory; the key structures in the state system are intersubjective rather than material; state identities and interests are in an important part constructed by these social structures' (Wendt 1994: 385).…”

“…There are also strands of this line of argument in Keohane (1989bKeohane ( , 1989c and Keohane and Hoffmann (1993). 22 Among them Wendt (1992Wendt ( , 1994Wendt ( , 1995, Katzenstein (1996), Florini (1996), Legro (1997) and Ruggie (1998a). 23 For similar critiques, see Kowert and Legro (1996) and K. E. Smith (1999).…”

“…They can be perceived as a Janus-face -being both arena and actor. Determining theories like Alex Wendt's (1994) about collective identity-formation highly relevant and interesting.…”

The Great Powers and Genocide: Lessons from Rwanda

“…Genocide, like slavery, is beyond the pale of acceptable social practice, whether pursued by states or groups; its renunciation is an essential property of a civilized state as a unit of legitimate government. If states and peoples act to stop or staunch genocide, wherever and whenever it may arise, their actions fall within the set of 39 Katzenstein (1996);Wendt (1994;, inter alia, discuss at length the construction of the notion of the state and its evolutionary and volitional make up. 40 The wall still remains intact in all other respects, pending an examination of its defenses against an enlarged attack by human rights advocates dedicated to an expansionist objective.…”

Foreign aid and the fragile consensus on state fragility

“…States may award the right to exist to each other, or their citizens do, depending on the level of analysis chosen by the researcher (Wendt 1994;Anderson 1991 One might therefore argue that fragility is a dispensable aggregate of already rather abstract concepts, appropriated by policy-makers and of little analytical utility. We would cautiously disagree for mainly two reasons.…”