Understanding the viability of military alliances. How the perspectives of interests and identity can explain why NATO survived and SEATO failed
Keywords
Loading...
Authors
Issue Date
2015-04-23
Language
en
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Are we able to explain why some alliances are stronger than others? Much has
been written on alliances between states, how they are formed, how they evolve
and why they continue or dissolve. Most of the current studies within
International Relations literature are dominated by traditional theories such as
Realism and Liberalism. But are they both able to answer all the questions as to
why alliances form, evolve or dissolve completely?
In this study, a comparison between two specific cases is made. Both NATO and
SEATO were founded in the same era, in the same context and with the same
purpose. How is it then that NATO is still going strong today while SEATO
dissolved? To find an answer to this question, Liberalism and Constructivism
both shed light on the two alliances. Liberalism has been one of the most
influential theories in international organizations when it comes to describing
the behavior for international organizations and focuses mostly on the common
interests of states. Constructivism on the other hand, is a school of thought that
has gained more attention in recent years and shifts the focus more towards
more interpretative reasons such as common norms and identity as to why
states should cooperate.
Empirical results of this study show that the liberal hypotheses are confirmed
while constructivist hypotheses cannot, for the most part at least, be confirmed
with the presented literature. This means that the fate of alliances seems to be
based on interest calculations of its members and that identity only plays a
marginal role.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen