In their recent article “Institutional Authority and Security Cooperation within Regional Economic Organizations” (in Journal of Peace Research), Stephanie Hofmann and Yoram Haftel show why some regional economic organisations (REOs) expand their scope into the security realm. The authors emphasise that institutionalised economic and security cooperation can go hand in hand, in particular when the REO can rely on a well-equipped international staff who pushes for the scope expansion. Interview with Stephanie Hofmann, Associate Professor of Political Science at the Institute.

Why this interest for regional REOs and their security dimension?

What informs my research is the curiosity in understanding how international organisations (IOs) relate to one another. Grasping why some IOs change their institutional build-up over time, therefore, is part of a broader agenda. Two developments in particular have lead to an increase in IOs doing similar things. First, we have observed a significant increase in IOs since the 1990s. National governments and non-state actors have invested in creating more multilateral forums in which they can set agendas, formulate policies, implement ideas, etc. Second, we observe that many IOs have expanded their mandate from economic multilateral action to security (both my co-author Yoram Haftel and I have already worked on such questions in the past). As a result of IO proliferation and scope expansion, some member states and non-state actors can now choose with whom to cooperate and under what conditions, while others are more constrained in their multilateral actions. Multilateral practices vary significantly and the multitude of IOs suggests that there are no clear or agreed sets of global rules, methods or goals. To better understand these complex inter-organisational relations, we have to inquire what motivates IO proliferation and scope expansion in the first place. This article is hence one stepping-stone to addressing the issue.

Can you give a brief panorama of the level of security cooperation within the 28 REOs?

In the article, we distinguish between the presence and the depth of cooperation. Some REOs do not focus on security issues at all. Others have included some kind of security cooperation within their mandate over time. However, they vary in depth (or shallowness – whatever your perspective). Shallow security cooperation entails relatively modest security structures. These structures aspire to assure member states against aggression and conflict as well as facilitate the exchange of information and perspectives between relevant stakeholders. Bodies such as security commissions, ministerial councils, and early warning systems facilitate multilateral coordination. Deeper levels of security cooperation envisage the execution of common security policies in the event that violent conflict erupts. Joint military exercises or military operations are the main indicators of such a deeper cooperation.

You produced a metric that gauges the degree of security cooperation as well as a new dataset of numerous organisations on this institutional aspect. Can you say a word about that methodology?

To our knowledge, we are among the first scholars to have created a dataset that helps understand the variation in security arrangements.

REOs with greater delegated authority seem to develop deeper security cooperation. What examples can you provide?

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are examples where the international staff has contributed significantly to the creation of the organisations’ security structures. We can observe that both organisations have conducted military operations in the past. On the other hand, organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) have very small secretariats (relatively speaking) and their international staff does not have much executive power. In line with our argument, these organisations include much weaker security structures.

Can we say that security is the new fashion – or key – issue for global development?

I am not sure whether security was ever out of fashion. We can relate so many different events, processes, etc., to security. If anything is in fashion at any particular point in time, I would say it is the adjective (e.g. human security) or noun (e.g. energy security) that you put in front of “security”. Given that you can put many adjectives and nouns in front of “security”, I dare say it is hard to talk about “global development” without security.

The way we understand security in the article could be called “traditional” as we look mainly at military structures. However, these military structures are not necessarily alliances but fulfil crisis management functions. On the multilateral and interstate level, these functions have been of interest since the end of World War II and have become more operable with the end of the Cold War. They periodically receive (media) attention when violent military conflicts call for their intervention.

You will start in September a four-year project funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), “To Save and to Defend: Global Normative Ambiguity and Regional Order”. Is it related with this article? If not, what is its rationale?

While the article is a stepping-stone to understanding why we observe many IOs doing similar things, the SNSF-funded research takes the existence of multiple IOs for granted and is more interested in discovering and explaining the reasons why some regional security organisations (RSOs) cooperate more with the UN while others challenge the UN in security matters and suggest institutional and operational alternatives. This question is based on the observation that the UN and RSOs do not see eye to eye on the justification and conduct of peace operations. The UN Charter makes provisions regarding the role of RSOs in maintaining international peace and security but the UN’s monopoly and primacy in the authorisation and conduct of peace operations is contested. RSOs have formulated their own understandings of international security order and act accordingly. Some RSOs have taken on responsibilities without UN consent or against UN norms. This jeopardises inter-organisational cooperation and questions the normative coherence of the international order, in particular as security threats and violent conflict have led to a persistent demand for peace operations. Together with a research team of two doctoral students and a postdoc, I will tackle the main research question by building on an innovative theoretical agenda: rooted in International Relations, we will bring together the fields of IOs, comparative regionalism, and rising powers. In addition, we will draw insights from (socio-)legal studies. To do so, we will collect data on the UN and RSOs in the Americas (Union of South American Nations [UNASUR]), Europe (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]), Eurasia (Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO] and Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]), and Africa (African Union [AU]), using interviews, content analysis, network tools and process tracing.

Full reference of the article: Haftel, Yoram Z., and Stephanie C. Hofmann. “Institutional Authority and Security Cooperation within Regional Economic Organizations.” Journal of Peace Research 54, no. 4 (2017). doi:10.1177/0022343316675908.

Illustration: street art mural by ROA, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2012. Photo by Martha Cooper.