Ballistic Missile Defence system, a move which Russian President Vladimir Putin warned would only result in a future arms race as Russia tries to develop similar systems and missiles capable of nullifying US defences.
Security communities and the democratic peace
The development of security regimes therefore suggests that the fear and uncertainty inherent in the security dilemma can be moderated. A more radical position suggests it might even be possible to exclude the security dilemma, and therefore the likelihood of war, from international politics altogether. This idea has been most closely associated with the development of ‘security communities’, the argument being that while security regimes may rise and fall over time (note America’s challenge to the non-proliferation regime through its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty) security communities are potentially more durable.
The concept was initially coined by Karl Deutsch in the 1950s to describe the emergence of groups of states amongst whom the sense of community and trust had developed to such a degree that members could be assured that all disputes would be resolved peacefully, without resort to physical violence. Security communities are therefore characterized by dependable expectations of peaceful change. For Deutsch, security communities develop through processes of integration and community building between states with compatible core values and identities. In particular, he argued they are more likely to form when communication levels between states and societies are high. Thus, high levels of interaction through trade, migration, tourism, cultural and educational exchanges, etc. can all help foster trust, predictability of behaviour, and ultimately a shared sense of community. However, if high communication levels were enough then in a globalized age we might expect to see the emergence of a global security community and the eradication ofinter-state war. Clearly this has not happened. More recently, therefore, it has been argued that security communities are also characterized by the emergence of shared (as opposed to simply compatible) identities. In other words, through participation members not only come to identify with each other, but also to view their identity in collective terms.
The quintessential example of a security community is the European Union (EU). The key point about the European integration project is that its underlying rationale has been precisely that of preventing a return to the rabid nationalism and conflicts that ravaged Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. Integration has therefore developed on an incremental basis to encompass political, economic, social, and environmental sectors, and is increasingly evident in the area of security and defence. Common laws and institutions have been established and attempts to manufacture a common identity through the introduction of a European flag, anthem, and common currency have also been undertaken, as well as the establishment of a broader conception of European citizenship facilitating rights of free movement. Some of these measures have been more successful than others, but insofar as it now appears inconceivable for war to break out between member states, then it is fair to say that a security community has been created and that in the context of intra-EU relations at least, the security dilemma has lost relevance.
If member states of the EU have set aside the security dilemma in their relations with each other, then a similar claim has been made suggesting that liberal democracies have done likewise. Thus, while liberal democracies have fought many wars, they almost never seem to fight each other. Explanations vary. One suggestion is that liberal democracies recognize political disagreements with each other as reflecting the legitimate expressions of their respective citizens. Just as disagreements within liberal democracies are resolved through dialogue andrecourse to