2 What Is “Non-traditional Security Community”?

To construct the non-traditional security community, it is necessary to review the concepts of community and security community. Plato's “ideal state” and Aristotle's“theory of polis” are a philosophical and political source of the concept of community. According to Plato, “ideal state” is “just state” while Aristotle believes that “polis”is the best organization that enables people to live a political life. Ferdinand Tönnies emphasizes from the perspective of sociology that community is a “perfect unity of human will” on the basis of “tacit consensus”, and “community life is mutual possession and share of common property, namely, protecting and preserving common property.” Later scholars expand the definition and understanding of community multi-dimensionally. For instance, Robert Maclver develops Rousseau's idea of political community based on “people's free will”, believing that the essence of community is “community of interests” that can be created consciously to realize common interests.

Community in modern society takes a rich variety of forms. In addition to political community, economic community, cultural community, social community, and military community all of which are concerned with state power, there are scientific community, learning community, educational community, professional community, environmental community, and cyber community all of which are of non-state power. Community enables man's “gregarious” lifestyle to assume various meanings of modernity and forms but there is a type of community that directly takes state core interests as referents, that is, “security community”. Security is “the politics of all politics”. It is not only the most extensive in scope but also the most highly political. Hence, the traditional security community is closely related to a state's military affairs and politics directly and should be constructed and pursued by a state with the use of power.

2.1 The Origin, Key Variables and Construction Paths of Security Community

Richard W. Van Wagenen first conceived the concept of “security community” in international relations studies and Karl W. Deutsch elaborated in a comprehensive way “security community” for the first time. From the perspective of constructivism, Security Community edited by Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett further developed Deutsch's “pluralistic security community” and defined it as “a transnational region comprised of sovereign states whose people maintain dependable expectations of peaceful change”. Deutsch and Adler think that “dependable expectations of peaceful change” is the core characteristic of security community and traditional security (military and political security) is still the content security community is concerned with most. “The basic notion that underlies the security community mechanism is the organization of interstate relations in concentric circles rather than competing centers of power.” Andrej Tusicisny believes that the existent definition of security community does not take into consideration the element of the public. For this reason, he extends the content of security community, saying that in this region, there is neither interstate war nor civil war conceivable. Vincent Pouliot maintains from the perspective of practice that only when security officials in practice empower diplomacy to be the obviously important (even the only) path to resolve inter-state disputes can peace exist and the concept of security community is valid in practice.

Generally speaking, the creation of a security community entails two conditions:first, security actors themselves have the internal needs in terms of “external pressure”,“internal motive force”, and “co-existing interests” with other security actors;second, there exist relevant elements between security actors whose internal needs are externalized, such as “common cognition”, “shared mechanism”, and “common action”. In face of common security threats, the “external pressure” and “internal motive force” of security actors themselves tend to be easily formed while the “common cognition”, “shared mechanism”, and “common action” between security actors are difficult to achieve or need to undergo a long process of learning and gaming. This is because the interaction between security actors involves the pre-assessment of “absolute returns” and “relative returns”, the intertwining and compounding of non-traditional and traditional security problems, the worry of other actors' “hitching a ride” in security cooperation, and even the possible fear of the “negative overspill effects after the formation of the security community.

To construct security community, one should examine its key variables and ways of combination first. Adler and Barnett regard “factors conducive to peaceful change” as“motive force” and design it by centering on a three-tiered organizational framework. The first tier is precipitating factors, including the change of external environment, the development of the new interpretation of social reality, and external threats. The second tier consists of factors conducive to the formation of mutual trust and collective identity, involving structures (power structure and knowledge structure), and process (contact, international organization and institution, and social learning). The third tier is comprised of essential conditions for dependable expectations of peaceful change, including mutual trust and collective identity. With his studies of ASEAN, Amitav Acharya points out that system is not an essential condition for the formation of security community while norms and the process of identity socialization are of vital importance to the creation of security community. In his further studies, Adler adopts an analytically eclectic approach, thinking that security community and equilibrium of power are not mutually exclusive but intertwine and co-exist. Therefore, besides identity, power is a key element for the formation of the security community. From the perspective of security regionalism, Chinese scholar Zheng Xianwu makes a comprehensive study of the major four key complex variables of security community, suggesting that the complex key variables for the evolution of “security complex” into“security community” include material variable (power), interest variable (national interest and predilection), conceptual variable (norms, collective identity, and trust), and institutional variable (organization, mechanism, and convention). In addition to the systematic analysis of the key variables for the construction of security community by the aforementioned scholars, some researchers believe that national insecurity and non-traditional security threats are vital variables for the conception of security community.

In view of the complexity of security community construction and the diversity of actors, it is fairly difficult to induce a unified construction path and thus more study is needed in this respect. Adler and Barnett generalize the reconstruction of security community as a three-stage pattern: nascent stage, rising stage, and mature stage and each stage corresponds to different tier variable, characteristic, and stage action. Amitav Acharya points out that security community has its “declining stage” as the fourth stage. Chinese scholar Zheng Xianwu makes a systematic and innovative study of the development process of regional security integration approached from different theoretical perspectives. To summarize, the construction path of security community from the perspective of international relations theory can be seen in Table 2 in detail.

Basically, the cases of regional practice deviated from the aforesaid development process of security community but the exploration of construction paths is enlightening for the study of security community. These different paths provide security actors with ideas for reference and basic norms and feasible models for the construction of security community.

2.2 The Theoretical Construction of the Non-traditional Community

Transboundary cooperation mechanisms addressing non-traditional security threats are emerging and developing in different regions across the world, the theories of“security regionalism”, and “cognitive community” broaden our cognition of “security community” and the actors, referents, subjects and features of “security community”are increasingly non-tradition-oriented. “This objectively entails a theory of 'security community' which is more suited to the reality of regional security integration.” Therefore, the conception of “non-traditional security community” is a theoretical development under practical contexts.

2.2.1 The Definition and Characteristics of the Non-traditional Security Community

Tied by “commonly related elements”, community is an “action collective”, “organic organization” or “responsible unit” established through specific ways, such as various organizations, alliances, groups, communities, integrated cooperative teams and shared network platforms. The non-traditional security community aims to address nontraditional security threats and break through “resource-induced” security dilemmas. Thus, “non-traditional security community” can be defined as a transnational action collective to cope with non-traditional security threats established on the principles of “optimum co-existence” and “shared security”. This “action collective” performs the functions of setting subjects for discussion, allocating resources, balancing power, discussing measures and promoting their implementation. The reason for the proposal of non-traditional security community is to highlight the new perspective of non-traditional security governance rather than abstracting an entirely independent community from a host of security governance mechanisms. The previous transnational security governance mechanism can develop into the non-traditional security community or become an important mechanism of the non-traditional security community.

Non-traditional security threats that need the concerted action of many actors (states) to cope with are nonmilitary, transnational, asymmetrical, universal and complex. All these features are, to some extent, “reflected” on the non-traditional security community. Though the construction of the non-traditional security community is a historical process, the characteristics of the non-traditional security community can be defined as follows.

2.2.1.1 Security referents are “diversified”

Non-traditional security threats cover nearly all areas concerning “human security”(such as economy, culture, society, ecological environment, and public health) except political and military security. The fundamental motive force for the formation of the non-traditional security community is to address non-traditional security threats. Hence, the subjects that the non-traditional security community deals with involve all subjects concerning “human security” barring political and military security.

2.2.1.2 Security problems are “comprehensive”

Non-traditional security is comprehensive security. For this reason, what the non traditional security community deals with is not unitary security but complex or comprehensive security. Take population for example. It involves energy source, resources, environment, society and other areas. Another example is energy security. It concerns energy supply, energy technology, energy consumption, energy system and energy environment, intertwining with population, environment, resources, etc.

2.2.1.3 Security issues are “low political”

Security issues involved in the non-traditional security community shift from “high political arena” related to national sovereignty and state power to “low political arena”concerning human rights and are increasingly connected to people's daily life and their surroundings, making it increasingly difficult for traditionally “high political”institutions to respond flexibly and effectively to new security threats. Worse still, these institutions bring greater negative impact in their response.

2.2.1.4 The ways of security response are “field-oriented”

Non-traditional security is “field security” which is “extensive”, “complex”, and“multi-dimensional”. It emphasizes complicated relations of social activities reflected on security problems, featuring the overlapping, complexity, and interweaving of multiple “time-space relations” and many “qualities of activity” concerning security problems. Non-traditional security in different fields is “interconnected”. If nontraditional security problems in a certain field cannot be resolved within directly, the“resource-induced” security quandary can be resolved indirectly by supplying other non-traditional security public products.

2.2.1.5 The subject of security is “multi-tier”

The “field nature” of non-traditional security threats determines the complexity of the content of security preservation. Owing to its own limitations, a unitary government actor is not adequate to address non-traditional security threats in terms of response, result, and facility. The participation of non-government organizations, including social organizations, academic societies, and think tanks, can play a special role in easing the shortage of non-traditional security products and make up the deficiency of traditional systems and mechanisms of the government.

2.2.1.6 Security boundary is “invisible”

Because non-traditional security threats are “asymmetrical”, “uncertain”,“complicated”, and “difficult to control”, their impacts tend to be trans-regional and are hard to predict and determine. All forms of “boundary infiltration” require that the non-traditional security community should be “trans-boundary”, “open”, and“inclusive”. Therefore, such non-traditional security threats as global warming and the breakout of pandemics entail the response of the regional or global non-traditional security community.

2.2.1.7 The system of security preservation is a “network”

The non-traditional security community is a multi-tier and multi-track governance network. In the spirit of “a community of shared future” and with the different areas of non-traditional security as pivots, states, local governments, and non-governmental organizations cooperate with one another through mutual consultation, co-contribution, and benefit sharing, thus establishing good non-traditional security governance systems at sub-regional, regional, interregional, and global levels.

To sum up, the major differences between the traditional security community and the non-traditional security community can be seen in Table 3.

As a “security community under the context of non-traditional security”, the nontraditional security community “is a regress to community in the original sense of political science and sociology, reflecting the renewal and breakthrough made by man in its understanding and practice about community”. From the contrast, we may find that compared with traditional security communities, non-traditional security communities are not closed or exclusive but open and inclusive. They learn from, consult and share with each other instead of restricting each other and being subject to hegemonic power. Besides, they do not confine themselves to national security but pay attention to world security, social security and human security in addition to national security. Furthermore, non-traditional security communities in which state actors do not play a leading role are large platforms of state and non-state actors for “cooperation and all-win”.

2.2.2 The Type, Motive Factor and Development Stage of the Non-traditional Security Community

The emergence of the non-traditional security community does not result from a few countries' partiality and initiative but from the regionalization and globalization of non-traditional security preservation. As far as the regionalization of non-traditional security preservation is concerned, trans-boundary non-traditional security threats are regionalized, countries are interlinked in security and destiny regionally and many factors (countries) set up regional multi-dimensional and multilateral security mechanisms, which will inevitably bring about the creation of different types of the non-traditional security community.

2.2.2.1 Type

Non-traditional security communities can be divided into three types in terms of actors. They are constructed by state actors, state actors and non-state actors, and non-state actors respectively.

The major characteristic of the first type of the non-traditional security community is that its shared mechanism is powerfully ensured and strongly binding, making it easy to solve thorny problems of traditional security intertwining with non-traditional security. The major feature of the second type of the non-traditional security community is that its shared mechanism is ensured and binding to some extent but it has difficulty making choices among the problems of traditional security overlapping with non-traditional security because of the asymmetric statuses of actors. The major feature of the third type of the non-traditional security community is that its shared mechanism is lacking in powerful insurance and its binding force is weaker than that of the other two types of the non-traditional security community, thus unable to solve the problems of traditional security interweaving with non-traditional security.

In practice, the non-traditional security community, no matter what actors it consists of, should innovate its modes of international cooperation with a view to solving nontraditional security problems.

2.2.2.2 Motive Factor

The major factors for the establishment and development of the non-traditional security community are common threats and destiny, common interests and prediction as well as collective identity and action. The common destiny revealed in the process of threat—cognition—response—order, the interdependence forged in the process of interest—prediction—investment—gain, and the civilizational integration brought about by identity—discourse—culture—expectation deliver the community the prospects and inspiration of “a common future”. If what the early theories of security community emphasize is “interest and value orientation”, the non-traditional security community attaches greater importance to “threat and destiny orientation”. The inevitability of non-traditional security threats and the non-exclusiveness of non-traditional security governance empower non-traditional security cooperation to be the only way of governance and the non-traditional security community to transcend such ascriptive and heterogeneous factors as “history”, “institution”, “faith”, etc. thus achieving peace, cooperation and co-sharing in the real sense of “generic security”.

Of course, people did not have a deep understanding of non-traditional security threats at first and many countries addressed non-traditional security threats in traditional security mentality. As a result, there was tension, confrontation, conflict, strife and even resort to force in interstate relations. Actually, confrontational action cannot resolve the “resource-induced” security dilemma in the end. Instead, confrontation can only lead to the sufferings or losses of two or many parties. Therefore, in the wake of the Cold War, the response to non-traditional security threats between states has undergone the process of confrontation—competition—competitioncooperation—peace-cooperation during which cooperation has been strengthened, collective identity deepened and collective action constantly extended.

2.2.2.3 Development Stage

The transformation of the non-traditional security community from an idea into a reality is a process of interaction between different motive actors at different development stages and the creation and development of the non-traditional security community has its own special path. A single actor is unable to cope with complex nontraditional security threats. The network platform of mutual help established against common non-traditional security threats is the embryo of the non-traditional security community. Within this loose platform, all actors continue strengthening cooperation based on common destiny and interact more frequently and closely. The security benefits produced in the temporary and cooperative response encourage all actors to establish organizations and mechanisms with common expectations for regional security. The system of formal and informal rules is the basis of the institution and the institutionalization of non-traditional security cooperation signals that the non-traditional security community begins to take shape. The joint response of all actors, including states, local governments and social organizations, make it possible for the benefits of the cooperative institution to increase and overspill continuously. This series of spontaneous processes deepen actors' embeddedness in non-traditional security cooperation and this embeddedness “enhances their mutual identity, promoting their sharing of knowledge and value on some problems as well as their identity integration”. The we-feeling based on collective identity is the core of a mature non-traditional security community in which the identity of actors will be deepened constantly and “resource-induced”security dilemma will be resolved effectively. Table 4 demonstrates the general development stages of the non-traditional security community.

It is a rather long process to construct the non-traditional security community and it is not smooth sailing but is fraught with twists and turns. Different stages may overlap, skip, “turn back”, even discontinue or disintegrate. The discontinuation of cooperation in the non-traditional security community usually results from the security problems within the community. When there are severe traditional security conflicts between states, non-traditional security dilemmas will give way and stop for traditional security problems, and even intentionally aggravate “resource-induced” security dilemmas to safeguard national political and military security.

Whether in theory or in practice, scholars are making further explorations of the non-traditional security community because it is an ideal cooperation state worth pursuing. This article will discuss the modes of cooperation—the network platform of mutual help, organizational mechanism and mature community that emerge at the construction stages of the non-traditional security community under the context of the non-traditional security community.