Skip to main content

What Is Civilian Power?

  • Chapter
  • 197 Accesses

Part of the New Perspectives in German Studies book series (NPG)

Abstract

Hanns Maull’s thinking on Civilian Power has undergone considerable change. Whereas it was largely prescriptive in its original form, it later became more narrowly focused on foreign policy analysis, working with the concepts of foreign policy culture and role theory that are also developed here.1 Equally, whereas Maull at first proposed the Civilian Power approach as an argument about the distinctiveness of Germany and Japan, he later conceded that other states also have the potential to act like Civilian Powers. Common to both aspects of Maull’s work is a theoretical assumption that is never explicitly discussed, namely that the nature of international politics makes possible the policies which Maull presents as desirable. The aim of this first chapter is therefore to discuss the theoretical assumptions on which Maull’s argument rests.

Keywords

  • Foreign Policy
  • Role Conflict
  • Military Force
  • Role Theory
  • East Central

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1057/9780230289024_2
  • Chapter length: 24 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-230-28902-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Hanns W. Maull and Knut Kirste, ‘Zivilmacht und Rollentheorie’, Zeitschrift f%ir Internationale Beziehungen, 3/2 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Patricia Davis and Peter Dombrowski, ‘Appetite of the wolf’, German Politics, 6/1 (1997), p. 3. For the concept of the trading state see Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die Zentralmacht Europas, Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbuhne (Berlin: Siedler, 1994), p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hanns W. Maull, ‘Civilian Power: the concept and its relevance for security issues’, in Lidija Babic and B. Huldt (eds), Mapping the Unknown: Towards a New World Order (Stockholm: Swedish Institute for International Affairs, (1993), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. A. Hobson, Richard Cobden: The International Man (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1918), p. 391.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See, for instance, Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (Westwood Village, LA: US Library Association, 1932), p. 48. Thomas Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine (London: G. P. Putnam, 1894), vol. 2, p. 456.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cobden, cited in William Harbutt Dawson, Richard Cobden and Foreign Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1926).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peter Wilson, ‘Leonard Woolf and international government’, in David Long and Peter Wilson (eds), Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. A. Hobson, Towards International Government (London: Allen & Unwin, 1916).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1933), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience (London: Temple Smith, 1978), p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. A. Hobson, Problems of a New World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1921), p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organisation, 46/2 (1992); Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American Political Science Review, 88/2 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karl W. Deutsch (ed.), Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas Risse-Kappen, Co-operation Among Democracies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. For a critical evaluation see the different contributions to Michel E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (eds), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maull, ‘Civilian Power: the concept and its relevance for security issues’, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, now Palgrave, 1974), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph S. Nye, ‘Soft power’, Foreign Policy, 80 (1990), pp. 166–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. The classical realist critique was made by E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 19I9–39 (London: Macmillan (now Palgrave), 1948). For the critique of constructivism see Hans-Martin Jager below.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hans-Martin Jager, ‘Konstruktionsfehler des Konstruktivismus in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift fü‘ r Internationale Beziehungen, 3/2 (1996), pp. 326–7.

    Google Scholar 

  25. This refers to Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  26. For an example of this view see John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15/1 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Adrian Hyde-Price, European Security beyond the Cold War (London: Royal Institute for International Affairs, 1991), p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Hoffmann’s contribution to Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Keohane and John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Correspondence’, International Security, 15/2 (1990), p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, brief edn (New York: McGrawHill, 1993). More recently, realist scholars have turned against neorealism precisely because it has been unable conceptually to account for the significance of institutions. For an attempt to do so see Randall L. Schweller and David Priess, ‘A tale of two realisms: expanding the institutions debate’, Mershon International Studies Review, 41/1 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence; see also the neoliberal authors in David A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983); Volker Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  32. For Keohane, for instance, nation state sovereignty is a persistent feature of interstate cooperation; see Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony, Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  33. (1994), and Andrew Hurrell and Anand Menon, ‘Politics like any other? Comparative politics, international relations and the study of the EU’, West European Politics, 19/2 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  35. William Wallace, ‘Old states and new circumstances: the international predicament for Britain, France and West Germany’, in William Wallace and William E. Paterson (eds), Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe (Farnborough: Saxon House, 1978), p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See the literature survey by Margot Light and Christopher Hill, ‘Foreign policy analysis’, in Margot Light and A. J. R. Groom (eds), International Relations (London: Pinter, 1985); see also the contributions to Michael Clarke and Brian White (eds), Understanding Foreign Policy (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989), none of which include cultural variables. The same is true even for many authors in the so-called ‘second-generation’: see for instance most contributions to Laura Neack, Jeanne Hey and Patrick J. Haney (eds), Foreign Policy Analysis — Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  37. The concept of a foreign policy culture is derived from the political culture studies that emerged in postwar American political science. See Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba (eds), Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965); Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963); Lucian W. Pye, ‘Political culture’, in David L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, now Palgrave, 1968), Vol. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  38. The first part of this definition takes important cues from Peter Katzenstein and Thomas Berger. See Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Introduction: alternative perspectives on national security’, and Thomas U. Berger, ‘Norms, identity and national security in Germany and Japan’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  39. For the definition of ‘academic metaphor for self-in-context’ see Thomas F. Fitzgerald, Metaphors of Identity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Introduction’, in Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Is the ship of culture at sea or returning?’, in Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil (eds), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996), p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  42. K. J. Holsti, ‘Toward a theory of foreign policy: making the case for role analysis’, in Stephen G. Walker (ed.), Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, 1st edn (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Theodore R. Sarbin and Vernon L. Allen, ‘Role theory’, in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968), p. 489.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Rainer Zitelman, Karlheinz Weißmann and Peter GroBheim (eds), Westbindung. Risiken und Chancen für Deutschland (Berlin: Propylaen, 1993); more related to German identity and less on foreign policy is Heimo Schwilk and Ulrich Schacht (eds), Die selbstbewußte Nation (Berlin: Ullstein, 1994). For a

    Google Scholar 

  45. Discussion of these see Peter Puizer, ‘Nation-state and national sovereignty’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London, November 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  46. For a view of this before unification, see Hans-Peter Schwarz (ed.), Die gezahmten Deutschen. Von der Machtbessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  47. On the same argument after 1990, see for instance Gregor Schollgen, Angst vor der Macht. Die Deutschen und ihre Außenpolitik (Berlin: Ullstein, 1993); also most authors in Arnulf Baring’s volume: Germanys New Position in Europe (Oxford: Berg, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  48. William E. Paterson, ‘Helmut Kohl, “The Vision Thing” and escaping the semi-sovereignty trap’, in Clay Clemens and William E. Paterson (eds), The Kohl Chancellorship (London: Frank Cass, 1998), pp. 31–2

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2002 Henning Tewes

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tewes, H. (2002). What Is Civilian Power?. In: Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe. New Perspectives in German Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289024_2

Download citation