Friends in The Region. A Comparative Study On Friendship Building and Regional Integration

Original Article
Friends in the region: A comparative study on

friendship building in regional integration
Andrea Oelsnera,* and Antoine Vionb

a
Department of Politics and IR, University of Aberdeen, Dunbar Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY,
Scotland.
E-mail: a.oelsner@abdn.ac.uk
b
Laboratoire dEconomie et Sociologie du Travail, Universite de la Mediterranee, CNRS UMR
6123, 35 Av Jules Ferry, 13626 Aix-en-Provence Cedex, France.
E-mail: antoine.vion@univmed.fr
*Corresponding author.
Abstract The role of international friendship in regional integration be it as

one of encouraging integration or as its by-product tends to be overshadowed by
(realist) assumptions of naked self-interest. This article aims to open up a space for
friendship in the study of regional integration, by exploring the structuration of a
series of speech acts and institutional facts that can be interpreted as signs of
engagement in, and proofs of, friendship. In doing this, it puts forward a new
analytical perspective and methodological framework. The case studies chosen to
illustrate the analysis the FrancoGerman and the ArgentineBrazilian dyads
reflect the historical meaning of the experience of moving away from enmity/
antagonism towards building relationships based on mutual trust, which put these
dyads at the centre of regional integration processes.
International Politics (2011) 48, 129151. doi:10.1057/ip.2010.37
Keywords: FrancoGerman relations; ArgentineBrazilian relations; regional

integration; Mercosur; international friendship
Introduction
The role of international friendship in regional integration be it as one of

encouraging it or as its by-product tends to be overshadowed by (realist)
assumptions of naked self-interest. However, focusing on the construction of
international and transnational friendship by exploring the structuration of a
series of speech acts and institutional facts can shed light on neglected aspects
of regional cooperation. Furthermore, it can help understand the transforma-
tion that regions occasionally undergo from antagonism or even enmity to
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748 International Politics Vol. 48, 1, 129151
www.palgrave-journals.com/ip/
Oelsner and Vion
economic and political integration. Among traditional IR and regional

integration theories that could have taken up the question of international
friendship are neo-functionalism, intergovernmentalism, new institutionalism
and constructivism. Yet, surprisingly, they devote little or no space to the issue
of friendship.
Neo-functionalist approaches have emphasized the effects of spill-over
and spill-around on processes of regional integration as almost mechanical
adjustments among a large range of actors (see Haas, 1958; Lindberg, 1963;
Schmitter and Haas, 1964; Schmitter, 1969, 1970). However, as some critical
voices have pointed out, neo-functionalism has often limited its focus to formal
members and formal integration, and to teleological analyses that dictate how
other integration processes should advance by comparing them to the
European process (Hettne, 2003; Saurugger, 2008).
In turn, intergovernmentalisms focus on close links between domestic
politics and will to cooperate (Hoffmann, 1966; Moravcsik, 1993) is often too
narrow to examine international friendship as something else than the cover-up
for national interest. A more original perspective is developed by Ulrich Krotz
(2002a,b), who proposes to bring back friendship into the intergovernmentalist
analytical framework. Similarly, new institutionalism tends to neglect the
question of friendship in regional integration processes. With the exception of
Aaron Hoffmans work (2002, 2006) on the building of trust, most new
institutionalists prefer to study concepts such as rules, norms and institutional
designs (Hix, 1994; Hall and Taylor, 1996), veto points (Immergut, 1990), or
path dependence that guides political choices (Pierson, 1996). Even in more
recent constructivist approaches the question of international friendship is only
rarely discussed, as shown in the next section. Reflections on friendship emerge
from the margins of all these schools.
The aim of this article is to open up a space for friendship in the study of
regional integration. In order to do this, the article proposes a new framework
and a new strategy. Following Graham M. Smith (2011, pp. 1027, in this issue),
here too the strategy is one of
investigating a network or complex of friendship as both a theoretical

term and an empirical phenomena or dynamic. From this perspective,
relationships characterized as friendship could appear at any point on a
number of registers but they need not all appear at the same points and
on the same registers.
Thus, rather than a political objective or goal, friendship is defined as a

political process, the study of which will require identifying a series of acts
and facts that could be interpreted as signs of engagement in, and proofs of,
friendship. This method relies on a pragmatic and analytical sociology based
130 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748 International Politics Vol. 48, 1, 129151
Friends in the region
on the study of speech acts and institutional facts (Searle, 1995), putting
forward a new analytical perspective and methodological framework to study
the question of international friendship. The article thus offers a middle range
theory for the study of the emergence of regional friendship, and does not
intend to do more than this. The case studies chosen to illustrate the analysis
the FrancoGerman and the ArgentineBrazilian dyads reflect the historical
meaning of the experience of moving away from enmity/antagonism towards
building relationships based on mutual trust, which put these dyads at the
centre of regional integration processes.
In what follows, the next section introduces some analytical challenges faced
by IR in its attempts to study international friendship. The following section
presents the methodological approach for studying the emergence of friendship
and applies it to the European and South American cases. Finally, the
concluding section discusses the opportunities of a new research agenda for
comparative studies.
Friendship as a Political Process: Analytical Challenges
Friendship in international relations can be analysed as a set of institutional

facts that constitute a cumulative process of building trust, growing affinities
and deepening cooperation. Searle (1995) contends that collective intention-
ality creates institutional facts facts of social reality with a certain status,
which in virtue of that status perform certain functions. According to Searle,
institutional facts depend on symbols and words for materializing, which make
them rather stable phenomena. However, they are equally dependent on the
continuing collective acceptance of their new status, and as such, institutional
facts are not irreversible their legitimacy can decline and they can eventually
disappear or their mandate be terminated. The remainder of this section deals
with the analytical challenge of explaining the building of trust and the
institutionalization of friendship in international relations.
Friendship in regional integration from an IR perspective
Karl Deutschs Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (1957)
remains a classic source of inspiration for IR perspectives on regional
integration based on friendship and trust. Building upon Deutschs concept of
a security community, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (1998) explore the
processes of social learning that allow positive transformations in actors
cognitive structures. One of Deutschs most interesting assumptions is that
the expansion of social communication among individuals across borders is a
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748 International Politics Vol. 48, 1, 129151 131
Oelsner and Vion
factor of peace-building. His aim to measure such progress and to link it to

peaceful relations remains one of the most noteworthy attempts at developing
an empirical sociology of international relations. Like neo-neofunctionalism
(Schmitter, 2004), this social communication analytical framework contends
that the expansion of social relationships is the dynamics that explains
integration. However, in both cases social adjustments remain too mechanical
or implicit to explain how they accumulate into a process of friendship as a set
of institutional facts.
Likewise, neither liberal institutionalism nor intergovernmentalism has
paid much attention to expressions of friendship in the building of cooperation.
Mainstream work in these fields assumes that interests explain the choices
governments make, as well as their willingness to cooperate, whether this
equilibrium is modelled by classical rational choice, agency, or game theories.
Krotz (2002a,b) contributes to this literature with the useful notion of
parapublic underpinnings, which, he claims, helped to bind ties of co-
operation between France and Germany. Three phenomena are at the centre of
his research youth exchange programmes, city twinning and cultural
institutes. Krotz (2002b, p. 19) concludes that
the Franco-German parapublic experience of the past half century

suggests that these practices, more than anything else, affect the meaning
and purpose of the relationship between French and Germans as social
collectivities and national compacts. Parapublic processes Europeanizing
effects rest in the increased density of a certain type of transborder
contact that constructs value and meaning among Europeans of different
national origins.
Krotzs effort to bring back emotions and meanings into liberal institution-
alism as a kind of extended rational choice is welcome. His approach, however,
appears sometimes static, neglecting the dynamic role of these parapublic
processes. Specifically, studying the linkages between youth exchanges, city
twinning and cultural institutes without exploring their mutual reinforcement
through different time sequences offers only a partial answer to the question of
the effects of these parapublic practices on larger political processes. Equally
problematic is Krotzs implicit assumption that such ties do not perform a
transformative function on constitutive domestic structures. In a study on
French municipal governments Vion (2002) shows that local initiatives such as
the ones Krotz studies have contributed to substantially revising national
rules in the aftermath of the Second World War. Without micro-historical
perspectives on the structuration of social processes, the events that Krotz
identifies as underpinnings, which are here directly linked to friendship, may
be seen as just sentimental supplements to mainstream theory, a marginal
activity of common value gluing in mainly interest-based international

cooperation.
Aaron M. Hoffmans (2002) conceptualization of trust is closer to what this
article discusses, as it combines two analytical dimensions: the first consists in
circumventing security-dilemma arguments; the second proposes a new way of
analysing the nature of relationships between leaders or peoples. With regard
to the first dimension, Hoffman (2002, p. 394) states that
[a]rguments that focus on the security dilemma are often difficult to

reconcile with the idea of trusting relationships because they emphasize
the willingness of states to take advantage of one another. Very simply,
opportunism destroys the expectation of trustworthiness, i.e. the belief
that trustees will advance and/or protect the interests of trustors in spite
of their capacity to do harm. Absent basic confidence that others will do
what is right, trusting relationships cannot develop.
This links to his second point about how to analyse and identify trusting
relations. For Hoffman (2006, p. 26), [t]rusting interstate relations emerge
when leaders believe their counterparts are trustworthy and, based on this
perception, enact policies that make their states vulnerable to the actions of
their counterparts. Thus, in order to measure trusting relationships research
should identify what Hoffman calls discretion-granting policies, and cross
these with decision-making data showing that decision makers enacted those
policies at least partly because they found their counterparts to be trustworthy.
From this perspective, trust is a process rather than an end state, which
ontologically appears to be the correct approach.
In Building Trust, Hoffman (2006) applies his framework to several case
studies. His discussion about the institutionalization of European cooperation
(Hoffman, 2006, pp. 81109) illustrates how minor institutional arrangements
can contribute to guaranteeing long-standing trusting relationships, thereby
becoming decisive instances in such processes. Another study on the building
of trust and friendship based on a new institutionalist perspective has shown
how such trust-building processes may be rooted in local institutions and
societies, often supporting institutional arrangements constructed in other
contexts (Vion, 2007). Evidence also suggests that the focus on political leaders
alone is too narrow to explain trusting dynamics (see, for instance, Deschenes
and Patsias, 2011 in this issue).
In turn, a constructivist approach combining the theories of securitization
and regional peace can help to shed light on the building of mutual trust at the
interstate level (Oelsner, 2007). Securitization focuses on the process through
which issues become security issues, that is, how they move from the ordinary
political agenda into the emergency-dominated security agenda (Waever, 1995,
Oelsner and Vion
1998; Buzan et al, 1998; Buzan and Waever, 2003). Speech acts and a delicate
negotiation between securitizing actors and the securitizing audience char-
acterize the process. Conversely, desecuritization involves the shifting of issues
out of the emergency mode and into the normal bargaining processes of the
political sphere (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 4). Both securitization and desecuritiza-
tion are domestic processes of security agenda setting. However, when the
issues to be securitized or desecuritized involve neighbouring states, they may
have a regional impact. Thus, a process of domestic desecuritization of regional
issues may encourage positive changes at the regional level such as an
improved and more relaxed regional environment, a more stable regional peace
and facilitate the emergence of trust (Oelsner, 2007). As argued above, the
literature briefly reviewed here, which emerges from the margins of dominant
contemporary approaches, highlights some crucial elements that are useful for
studying friendship in international relations.
Trust and affinity
Karl Deutschs (1957) empirical ambition remains problematic. His emphasis

on the impact of intensifying social communication on polity leads to
measuring the global quantity of relationships rather than stressing the special
quality of some of them. Conversely, this article aims to investigate the con-
ceptual link between politics and polity by starting from a different analytical
and empirical point. An ontological problem identified in Hoffmans
conceptualization of trusting relations, and lying at the heart of the app-
roach developed here, needs a closer examination. Hoffman (2002, p. 394)
indicates that trusting relationships emerge when actors leave the fate
of their interests to the discretion of others with the expectation that those
actors will honor their obligation to avoid using their discretion in a manner
harmful to the first. Yet discretion and obligation seem to be conflicting
principles.
Differently, Livet (1994) suggests that trust is to be found in conventions,
and conventions emerge when the parties search for reciprocal guarantees in
the expression of cognitive marks that provide a common interpretative
frame. Yet conventions are neither simple obligation nor simple discretion.
They are mutual promises that generate common moral obligations. For Livet
(2006) mutual promises are based on an agreed itinerary going from how
something should be in the future to what should be done to achieve it, thus
engaging partners at least until this has been done. Ontologically, mutual
promises can be understood as virtual routes that cannot be changed
unilaterally; on the contrary, they need to be revised jointly if they are to be
modified.
On a pragmatic level, proofs of engagement constitute here the cognitive

marks of the ongoing progress in these routes that are mutual promises. They
help materialize the interpretation of a continuing common intention. Mutual
promises and proofs of engagement neither depend on pure rationality or
skilful assessment of the others intentions, nor are they specific behaviours or
social transactions. Interpretation of manifest marks of the others intentions
constantly shifts from observable to hypothetical intentions, from real to
unreal ones, creating a series of conventional marks that mediate interactions.
From a more sociological perspective, this is a pattern of institutionalization
based on intersubjectivity that shows that friendship as a process leads to
selective affinities. On the basis of these assumptions, bonds that tie trusting
relationships emerge from revisions of peoples, leaders and states values
through an accumulation of readjustments, which often spread through the
power of exemplarity.
Exemplarity of bonds
Elgins (1983, 1993) and Goodman and Elgins (1988) findings about
exemplification are key to understanding the way interpersonal friendship
becomes political. Their work distinguishes between denotation and exem-
plification as two different routes of reference through which meaning
is constructed. In simple denotation (A denotes B) certain things denote
friendship. In addition to the reasons exposed above, this assumption is
particularly problematic owing to the opacity of intentions in interactions. If
friendship is constructed through simple denotation, then one cannot but agree
with Walzer (1967, p. 194), when he claims that the union of men can only be
symbolized; it has no palpable shape or substance.
On the other hand, friendship can be understood as constructed through
exemplification that is, exemplified through speech acts and facts. In this
case, their exemplarity is the dynamic expression through which new revisions
and shifts in public opinion may emerge. Thus, political friendship is not just
rhetoric (Viltard, 2009) or simply a metaphor: it is grounded in institutional
facts that construct exemplar bonds.
As a first step, rituals constitute a dominant kind of institutional fact
from which political friendship emerges. Friendship as a political process
does not only consist in handling symbols, but also in enacting pro-
mises and mutual engagement through exemplar expressions, inspiring fur-
ther revisions of peoples values. Nonetheless, as Searle (1995) points out,
the interruption or decline of such acts and facts is always possible, which
means that friendship in international relations is always a fragile political
process.
Oelsner and Vion
Friendship as a Cumulative Process
The study of friendship as a cumulative process presupposes to pick out

instances of trusting relationships (Hoffman, 2002, p. 394), as well as to
classify them into a large range of acts and facts extending through different
political spheres. As Goffman (cited in Strong, 2000) suggests, one may not
manage to prove anything, only tidy up facts, but a carefully drawn up
classification that fits with common observations is often the best one can do.
Enacting friendship through different political spheres
Following Graham M. Smiths call (2011 in this issue) to look for mani-
festations of friendship at different points in time and on a number of different
registers, the model proposed here considers a variety of instances through
which, and a number of spheres in which, friendship is enacted and institu-
tionalized (see Table 1). The model contends that these seemingly unconnected
friendship instances, when analysed together, represent a consistent cumulative
process of friendship one that need not follow any predetermined path.
Although not exhaustive, this model puts forward a number of categories of
speech acts and institutional facts (first column in Table 1) that can take place
in different social spheres (first row in Table 1). The top three categories of acts
and facts manifest conventions, mutual promises and mutual proofs of
engagement represent both symbolic and concrete expressions of mutual
commitment. Rather than constituting empty rhetoric, repeated and consistent
expressions of mutual commitment in different spheres of international and
transnational relations point to the existence of a comprehensive process of
increasing mutual trust. Symbolic gestures as well as tangible proofs flesh out a
reciprocal view of trustworthiness, which in turn feeds back into the actors
positive perception of the value of their cooperative relation and friendship.
The bottom four acts-and-facts categories bilateral cooperation, expression
of common aims, common cultural policies and joint leisure activities
generally point to the translation of friendship into more concrete policy
initiatives.
Friendship speech acts and institutional facts may take place in different
spheres of international and transnational political life, although not all have
to. The model discusses three such spheres an intergovernmental one made
up of high rank state representatives, such as prime ministers, presidents and
other members of the executive branch; bureaucracies and agencies, which
structure multi-organizational fields characterized by consciousness of their
respective roles, high degree of interaction, coalitions, and a somewhat closer
relationship to civil society initiatives, which they legitimize, recognize or are
Table 1: Friendship acts and facts in different spheres of public life
Acts and facts Spheres Intergovernmental sphere Bureaucracies and agencies Civil society
/
Manifest conventions through Protocol Regular meetings Rituals
symbolic interactions Common inaugurations Invented traditions
Summits
Mutual promises Friendship treaties Agreements Oaths
Memoranda Guarantees
Agreements
Wills of cross-border exchanges or
professional cooperation
Mutual proofs of engagement Credible commitments Effective investment in cooperation Effective cooperation offers
Search for common positions and Coordinated agendas Gifts
solidarity in international fora Dedicated reports and official Honours
publications Feasts
Journals and reviews aiming at
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

mutual understanding
Involvement in bilateral New agenda-setting of: Interpersonal friendship bonds within Application to programmes
cooperation K Common military programmes and the implementation process
common alliances
K Scientific cooperation
K Trade and economic cooperation
Expression of common aims of Establishment of new agencies or Support of teaching languages Intercultural initiatives (journals,
mutual understanding programmes dedicated to mutual programmes meetings and so on)
International Politics
understanding Support of youth and popular Exchanges
Mutual promotion of national exchanges Mailing
languages Translation agreements Chatting
Common cultural policies Building of a common cultural agenda New dedicated institutions: TV Concerts
channels, TV programmes, festivals, Festivals
orchestras, contests, prizes and Prizes and awards organized by local
awards foundations or professional
Vol. 48, 1, 129151

associations
Joint leisure activities Personal/private invitations at the Support to regional tournaments Friendly matches between local or
highest levels of government professional teams
137
Oelsner and Vion
influenced by (DiMaggio, 1991; Landau, 1991; Scott, 1995); and civil society,
which, depending on its structure, culture and history, may play a more
prominent, more modest or even an insignificant role.
These three spheres should not be reified as stable political entities. On the
contrary, their relative influence and their social boundaries are always
fluctuating and cannot be taken for granted: every contemporary historical
context requires attention to the particular dynamics of their structuration, the
shapes of their reciprocal action and the patterns of their mutual construction.
Background to the case studies
Before moving on to the empirical application of this model, a brief note on the
historical background against which the ArgentineBrazilian and Franco
German friendship speech acts and facts unfolded seem appropriate. Although
the level of hostility as well as the level of mutual trust and friendship achieved
by the FrancoGerman dyad has had no parallel in the history of international
relations, some interesting similarities can be established between it and the
ArgentineBrazilian case. Most notably, both dyads have been at the heart of
regional integration processes that today can successfully claim to have
transformed their regional environments. In both cases the starting point of
these processes was a bilateral relation plagued by suspicion and distrust.
The historical evolution of Western Europe rendered the level of Franco
German distrust substantially higher than that of Argentina and Brazil.
Between 1870 and the end of World War II (WWII) three major wars took
place in Europe. Repeatedly, France and Germany occupied each others
territory and engaged in acts of increasing physical and moral devastation and
destruction. FrancoGerman post-WWII relations typically illustrate the
difficult road towards international friendship. Despite the Allies having taken
all precautions to ensure that Germany would not disturb the peace in Europe
again, for the first 10 years following the war, French and Germans were
distrustful of each other. For instance, the Germans remained resentful
towards the French, who, the former argued, exploited their occupied zone
more than the other occupying powers, and kept it in worse conditions. After
the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany, when the Atlantic Pact was
presented for ratification in France, both the left and right concentrated their
attacks on the dangers posed by German rearmament. Similarly, whenever the
status of the region of the Saar was discussed or during the European Defence
Community (EDC) negotiations, distrust of Germany was openly manifested
by the left and the right, and by EDC supporters and opponents although
all using different arguments. The German elite and public opinion held
comparable views of the French. Anti-German speeches and frequent
references to German militarism in France caused grievances among those

Germans working for rapprochement and European cooperation (Willis,
1968).
Eventually, the Saarlanders clear vote in favour of returning to German
sovereignty in 1955 allowed for a change in the character of FrancoGerman
negotiations. This vote highlighted both the need for cooperation and the
potential joint advantages to be derived from it. This shift in mutual
perceptions should not be underestimated. It took over 10 years and a
favourable period of European economic expansion (19551957) for the
political elite to appreciate that rapprochement and cooperation in the context
of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and later European
Economic Community could be a worthwhile enterprise.
In contrast, the first signs of rapprochement between Argentina and Brazil
arose in the late 1970s against the unfavourable background of military
dictatorships. By then, they had waged war on one another only once, in
18251828. Before and after that, their rivalry had mostly only involved a
search for regional influence, leadership and prestige: it had been limited to
arms (and nuclear) races rather than actual armed confrontation. By the 1970s
the military on both sides of the border started to prepare for the eventuality of
war, as the Itaipu dispute over hydroelectric resources of the River Parana
deteriorated. Nationalist rhetoric and bilateral animosity increased to the point
of making violence a likely outcome.
However, the 1970s also saw the concurrence of a number of international,
regional and domestic circumstances that prompted cooperative postures
within both military governments. Internationally, coordinated resistance to
US nuclear non-proliferation pressure became crucial for the continuity of
their programmes. President Carters human rights policy towards Latin
America also contributed to the identification of common interests. In
addition, Brazils new policy of gradual abertura (political liberalization)
facilitated the shift, as did Argentinas acknowledgement of its worsening
political and economic conditions. For the latter, rapprochement could result
in some concrete material benefits, among others balancing Chile, with which
Buenos Aires had a number of territorial controversies. The 1979 Agreement
put an end to the Itaipu dispute, finally allowing for the adoption of more
positive mutual perceptions. At this point, the possibility of cooperating with
the former rival was at last contemplated.
Despite the differences between the two dyads, the transformation that they
underwent involved a gradual, painstaking reassessment of the other, of self
and of the nature of their relationship. This, in turn and in time, resulted
in the slow and non-linear construction of friendship. What follows examines
manifestations of this type of relation in the ArgentineBrazilian and Franco
German dyads during the periods immediately following the end of the
Oelsner and Vion
antagonism. It was during the early periods of political rapprochement that

the most notable advances towards international friendship occurred, as it was
then that the foundations of a differently and newly defined relational pattern
were laid.
Expressing mutual commitment: The performative property of friendship
The political dynamics through which expressions of mutual engagement arose

contrast substantially in the two cases under examination. In the Franco
German case, meetings and cooperation between lower-level and local
government agencies, as well as civil society initiatives, preceded intergovern-
mental manifest conventions. It was, to a significant extent, a bottom-up
process. Conversely, in the ArgentineBrazilian case such official conventions
marked the beginning of credible mutual commitment, solidarity and trust,
making it a clear top-down process.
Between 1945 and 1968, three phases can be distinguished in Franco
German relations. The first phase goes from the birth of the Federal Republic
of Germany (19471949) to the failure of the ECD (1954). The second stage
covers the post-ECD European initiatives (1954) until the Elysee Treaty (1963).
Finally, the third phase starts with the Elysee Treaty and finishes with the rise
of the German Ostpolitik. In the first stage, while high levels of mutual distrust
and resentment inhibited official rapprochement, cautious initiatives that
helped to ease tension were taken in the area of cultural diplomacy by civil
servants and small cities mayors (Defrance, 1996). For instance, the Union
Internationale des Maires (UIM) was created with the goal of pursuing Franco
German reconciliation and understanding at the level of city mayors.
From 1947 to 1950 its efforts were isolated and uncoordinated. The Mont
Pelerin meeting of 1948 finished with a solemn mutual pledge to simplify visa
formalities and encourage exchanges among young workers, as well as annual
study trips of mayors and local government officers. However, participants did
not represent their town councils officially but rather attended in their personal
capacity. Although demand for exchanges with France increased among
German mayors after the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany in
1949, the implementation of these plans was hedged around with caution by
the French foreign office, which supported the idea in principle but feared
French local reactions.
The UIMs activities remained modest until the Stuttgart Congress (June
1950), which received the support of, and was attended by French and
German representatives at the highest level. The first official meeting in a
French locality that followed, with handshakes and mutual promises of youth
exchanges between the mayors of Montbeliard and Ludwigsburg, was highly
commented as exemplar by its promoters, and severely criticized by its

detractors. Most of the meetings that came thereafter were marked by
asymmetry mobilization of mayors of the most important German cities and
participation of French cities lesser representatives. The creation of the ECSC
and the frequent meetings that followed facilitated cooperation and dialogue
between agencies on both sides of the border. Indeed, increased interaction in
the context of the ECSC turned out to be one of the most effective ways to
overcome mutual negative perceptions despite persistent industrial conflicts.
The year 1954 constitutes a turning point for two reasons. First, the ECD
failure led to multiple political initiatives. In the intergovernmental sphere, the
integration of Germany into the Western European Union through the Paris
Agreements was a classic military alliance initiative aiming to guarantee peace
and mutual assistance. It constituted, however, a kind of uncertain alliance
given the diversity of approaches within and between the participating states
bureaucracies (Soutou, 1996). Simultaneously, city mayors played a key role in
overcoming the ECD failure, with the Council of European Municipalities
organizing, for instance, a large meeting in Venice. This event, in preparation
of the celebrated Messina Conference (Zucca, 1996), generated a remarkable
increase in the number of official local bonds. Twinning oaths between French
and German cities spread to include Frances largest cities and gained the
attention of regional and national media. Though protocols required cautious
preparations (Vion, 2007), these experiences were marked by intense emotion
and expressions of mutual promises that were renewed year after year.
These developments were all the more important as they help explain
gradual changes in how French public opinion at local levels perceived their
German neighbours. Furthermore, they help explain how manifest conventions
contributed to the signing of the symbolic 1963 Friendship Treaty of Elysee.
Thus, contrary to classic intergovernmental assumptions, the Elysee Treaty did
not favour city twinning and youth exchanges, but rather the exact opposite
occurred. The main change brought about by the Treaty, as well as by the
French-German Youth Office (OFAJ, after the French acronym) created in
July 1963, was that the municipalities regular exchange programmes became
centrally funded. This indeed accelerated the twinning process and increased
public interest in school, cultural and sport exchanges. In less that 15 years,
between 1954 and 1968, twinning oaths went from hardly 20 to 1500, while
bilateral institutions spread in many domains.
In contrast, in the Southern Cone of Latin America the process of
rapprochement and eventually friendship evolved in a rather state-led, top-
down mode. Following the signing of the October 1979 Itaipu Agreement, in
May 1980 a Brazilian (military) president visited Buenos Aires for the first
time in 40 years. The visit was reciprocated the next August by General
Videlas visit to Brasilia. In order to emphasize their significance, these
Oelsner and Vion
meetings were scheduled to last several days and included a large delegation of
ministers and state secretaries. Among the 22 documents signed establishing
cooperation in 11 areas was an agreement on nuclear fuel cycle cooperation,
which despite being rather symbolic marked the end of competition on
nuclear matters. Other agreements covered joint infrastructure enterprises,
such as the construction of a bridge over the River Iguazu linking the cities of
Puerto Iguazu (Argentina) and Porto Meira (Brazil), the first of its kind since
1947; hydroelectric cooperation, the export of Argentine gas to Brazil, and the
interconnection of their electricity systems (Oelsner, 2005, p. 169).
According to Carlos W. Pastor (1996), Argentine Foreign Minister at
that time, these summits resulted in personal ties that generated authentic
mutual understanding between the two presidents and other members of their
governments. In addition, mutual proofs of engagement aiming to ease
rapprochement abounded, such as Brasilias decision not to authorize British
airplanes flying to the South Atlantic to schedule a regular refuelling stop in
Brazilian territory, its agreement to represent Argentine interests in London
during and after the Falklands/Malvinas War, and its support for Argentinas
sovereignty claim at the UN and the Organization of American States.
After 1985, under the leadership of the newly elected democratic presidents,
Raul Alfonsn (Argentina) and Jose Sarney (Brazil), mutual manifest
conventions and promises multiplied. Although at first these did not translate
into immediate policy programmes, they constituted effective cognitive marks
signalling the creation of a common interpretative frame. Acts and facts
performed by the presidents intended to construct exemplar bonds that would
encourage new revisions of values and mutual perceptions within each states
public opinion sector.
The frequent presidential summits, the assertive language repeatedly used in
bilateral official documents and the continuing search for common grounds for
political cooperation reveal that references to friendship were more than a
rhetorical diplomatic instrument (Roshchin, 2011; see also Devere et al, 2011,
both in this issue). They reflected intersubjective perceptions of both shared
challenges and of the need for joint strategies to overcome them, and in that
context, a pledge for a common destiny. This can be seen in the December
1986 ArgentineBrazilian Friendship Act (Acta de Amistad, 1986), and was
thereafter often present in speeches by President Alfonsn and President
Sarney. For instance, on the occasion of the signing of the 1988 Integration,
Co-operation and Development Treaty, Alfonsn (1988) opened his speech by
saying that the Argentineans, and with them, their President, are honored to
have with us once more the Head of State of Brazil. We welcome a friend and
[y] the representative of a people friends with our people. Later, he referred
to the sincere and profound, uninterrupted dialogue and the climate of
confidence that has no precedent in the history of our relations, reminding his
guest that borders are not there to separate friends who share the same
problems and destiny. Sarney (1988), in turn, asserted never, in our common
history, have we been so far away from divergences. Never has the dialogue
between our governments been so frank and friendly.
Perhaps more revealing of these two leaders determination to reinforce trust
between the two states were the nuclear agreements, not least given both the
bilateral history and the sensitive nature of the issues involved. In 1985, the
presidents signed a Joint Declaration on Common Nuclear Policy, which
stated their commitment to developing nuclear technology with peaceful
purposes and reiterated the goal of close cooperation and mutual comple-
mentation. The following year, among numerous cooperation protocols, one
on immediate information and reciprocal assistance in case of nuclear acci-
dents was signed. Finally, in 1987 and 1988, for the first time in Argentine
Brazilian relations, Presidents Sarney and Alfonsn carried out visits to each
others nuclear facilities (Oelsner, 2005, p. 159). Carefully choosing instances of
cooperation that would have high impact in terms of their exemplarity,
these manifest conventions, mutual promises and proofs of engagement
taken together helped to construct a common frame of revised values that
accumulated in the form of political friendship.
Managing common practices: The transformative property of friendship
Managing common practices does not simply imply learning processes within
cooperation institutions, as institutionalism would stress. The transformative
property of friendship makes cooperation tangible: the gradual revision of
common perceptions spreads across domestic institutions, linking together a
set of diverse initiatives and rendering them coordinated political programmes
of bilateral cooperation. Developments in all spheres reinforce the process, as
mutual legitimization helps to converge in new political goals.
In this respect, FrancoGerman relations in the 1960s are most informative.
The cooperation and exchange initiatives that had begun in the 1950s led to a
new set of converging projects. For instance, between 1954 and 1963 govern-
mental policy guidelines regarding city twinning rituals and local exchanges
evolved from strict censorship of municipal transnational initiatives inherited
from the pre-war period, to laxer regulations on visas, thus facilitating
transborder trips. Student and youth exchanges supported by municipalities
and the OFAJ in the 1960s contributed to easing cooperation between the
Education ministries, and inspired the establishment of the first Franco
German bilingual sections in schools in Baden Wurttemberg and North
Rhine-Westphalia (1969) as well as the creation of FrancoGerman high
schools and the FrancoGerman A-Levels (1972). In all these initiatives, local
Oelsner and Vion
communities played a pivotal role too, as they coordinated these institutional

innovations with feasts and events generated by twinning oaths.
The 1960s and 1970s constituted the most dynamic phase of common
involvement in the three spheres identified above intergovernmental,
bureaucracies and civil society. There was growing political participation of
teachers and intermediate elites in local government. Similarly, scientific
cooperation increased rapidly too: from the first experiences in the nuclear field
in the mid-1950s, which had the clear aim of mutual control, to industrial
cooperation in aeronautics, which resulted in 1969 in the decision to jointly
produce the Airbus. Although these different initiatives could have been
managed separately, the process of institutionalization under way (with annual
consultations implemented after the Elysee Treaty) encouraged bureaucracies
to write common reports and coordinate their activities. Eventually, this led to
the creation in both Germany and France of a new role: a coordinator of
FrancoGerman relations.
The new generation of political leaders that emerged in the 1970s benefited
from these reinforcing routines of bilateral cooperation, to the point that what
is generally considered to be the golden age of the FrancoGerman axis
the 19741990 period can be said to rest on these solid foundations.
Furthermore, the pink wave of national political leaders of 1980s and 1990s
rose from local elections, and thus learned much about FrancoGerman
friendship from their municipal experiences. If the aim is to understand the
continuity and innovations involved in the whole integration and friendship
process, the role of these baby-boomers and the emphasis they placed on
common cultural projects ought not to be neglected.
The South American case offers a different perspective. The revival of the
project of Latin American cooperation and integration, starting with the
ArgentineBrazilian Programme for Economic Integration and Cooperation in
1986 and the ArgentineBrazilian Treaty of Integration, Cooperation and
Development in 1988, signalled the beginning of the friendship process. Only
seven years after the resolution of the Itaipu dispute, and once the military
governments had ended on both sides of the border, mutual trust rapidly began
to emerge.
If the 1980s were the years of manifesting mutual commitment, promises
and engagement, the 1990s saw the establishment and implementation of
these in the form of actual common institutions, be it formal organizations
with material entities or common social practices. For instance, the new
presidents, Carlos Menem (Argentina) and Fernando Collor (Brazil), agreed
in 1991 on the creation of the ArgentineBrazilian Agency of Control and
Accountability (ABACC) in order to administer their Joint System of
Accountability and Control and carry out reciprocal inspections to all nuclear
activities.1
Similarly, after 1990 the economic integration project accelerated when

Menem and Collor agreed to establish a bilateral common market by the end
of 1994. In 1991, Paraguay and Uruguay joined the project, and the four
countries signed the Treaty of Asuncion creating Mercosur. During the first
half of the 1990s genuine dynamics of interdependence became evident
between the Mercosur countries. In turn, growing exchange, interaction and
interdependence brought the business communities closer together, increas-
ing communication and making dialogue more fluent. During this period,
as Mercosur consolidated an external agenda, a shared sense of regional bloc
matured. The incorporation of Chile and Bolivia into Mercosur as asso-
ciated members (1996), and the decision to play as one single actor in
international negotiations such as those on the formation of the Free
Trade Area of the Americas, and on economic cooperation with the
EU reinforced this feeling.
Although Mercosur has clearly been a state-led, economic project, develop-
ments in the intergovernmental sphere encouraged closer links and new
rituals in bureaucratic spheres and among civil society groups. Although the
diplomatic academies of Argentina and Brazil have instituted yearly student
meetings and exchanges (Oelsner, 2005, p. 181), the most striking examples of
non-economic agencies cooperation have taken place in the military realm,
where all three branches have engaged in a large number of joint exercises,
visitations and exchanges (see Pion-Berlin, 2000; Oelsner, 2009).
In the cultural area there have also been innovative regional developments,
such as the organization of literary awards and pupils essay competitions
opened only to Mercosur residents, as well as a Mercosur Photography
Competition and a Mercosur Science and Technology Prize for young
researches (Oelsner, 2005, pp. 182184). In addition, social movements such
as feminists, environmentalists, indigenous peoples and human rights groups,
and NGOs have increasingly established transborder links and joint initia-
tives (Jelin, 1999, p. 45). As a result, a distinctive geographical scope that goes
beyond national borders has unfolded in the civil society sphere, where
friendship acts and facts can be seen too.
IR and International Friendship: Some Conclusions
The comparison of the two cases reviewed here helps to understand

international friendship as a cumulative process. The analytical framework
presented in this article contributes to the debate by offering a new theoretical
and methodological perspective. Theoretically, defining friendship as a set of
social acts and facts strengthening processes of mutual commitment implies
paying closer attention to promises, proofs and public gestures that can
Oelsner and Vion
function as exemplar experiences all pragmatic dimensions of cooperation

that most IR theories neglect. As Schimmelfennig (2001, 2004) demonstrates,
there are aspects of integration for which common references to interests and
preferences, or to the institutional logic of appropriateness offer insufficient
conceptualization.
In this context, the proposed micro-sociological empirical observation of
acts and facts runs the risk of appearing anecdotal if it fails to make explicit
reference to classic questions of IR, such as those of power or sovereignty
(Saurugger, 2008). However, although the link between micro-situations and
macro-structures (Cicourel, 1981) may be indirect and tacit, it is implicitly
relevant given that, following Randal Collins (1981), the latter are but
aggregations of former. This means that a grounded theory of friendship in
international relations does not need to be built upon such social constructs as
territoriality (Ruggie, 1993) or sovereignty (Biersteker and Weber, 1995;
Bickerton et al, 2007) these social realities are in themselves composed
of institutional facts such as those that the present theory highlights.
Nevertheless, the list of institutional facts constituting friendship that the
analytical framework proposed above suggests does not intend to be
exhaustive many may still be added; for instance, the role of historical and
collective memory in the consolidation of friendship initiatives (Constantin,
2011 in this issue).
Methodologically, comparing such cumulative processes across time and
space may provide a new empirical research agenda for the future. As Alan
Silver (1989) notes, friendship and trust as moral ideals evolve throughout time
and political patterns. Previous work by Evgeny Roshchin (2006) has focused
on the modern pre-Westphalian period, whereas this article has investigated
contemporary phenomena. The limitations and differences between the present
empirical findings and those of Roshchins constitute first steps in syste-
matic socio-historical comparisons. Although the pre-Westphalian period was
marked by friendship bonds within alliances among Kings and Lords, this
article has shown that friendship in the contemporary post-war period, instead,
is more broadly supported by participants in diverse spheres governments,
municipalities, trade-unions, universities, professional associations and many
others.
The article has argued that these actors have the capacity to support and
promote new institutions that can be presented as exemplar of a new political
environment. In this sense, the empirical cases analysed here have shown
how acts and facts in several spheres of FrancoGerman and Argentine
Brazilian bilateral relations functioned as consistent elements in a long and
reversible process of gradual rapprochement, increasing trust, and eventually
friendship. Bilateral developments within these two dyads, in turn, worked
as important exemplar instances in a larger movement towards regional
integration, which without their relational transformation would not have

taken place.
There is, however, no determinism or absolute certainty in processes like the
ones presented here. As with personal friendship, international friendship
is also characterized by fluctuations, ups-and-downs, varying degrees of
jealousy and even potential fights. In the 1990s, issues such as the war in
Yugoslavia and German reunification, and more recently the issue of the
Greek debt, brought tension to the friendship between France and Germany.
In a similar way, Brazils aspiration to hold a permanent seat at the UN
Security Council and Argentinas policy of automatic alignment with the
United States in the 1990s seemed to distance the two South American friends
(Oelsner, 2003, p. 202). Moreover, the possibility of parting paths and complete
reversal of friendship should also be considered. After all, there might be some
truth in Groucho Marxs famous quote no one is completely unhappy at the
failure of his best friend.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Michael Cox, Sabine Saurugger, Graham Smith,

Andrea Teti, Nikolaos Zahariadis, participants of the Politics and IR Research
Seminar at the University of Aberdeen, and members and participants of the
two panels on Friendship and IR at the 2010 ISA Convention in New Orleans
for their comments, suggestions and questions. We would also like to
acknowledge the support received from the Visiting Scholar Programme of
the College of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Aberdeen.
About the Authors
Andrea Oelsner is Lecturer of International Relations in the Department of

Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen. She
received her PhD from the London School of Economics, and was a post-
doctoral fellow at the European University Institute, Florence. She is the
author of International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the
Southern Cone (Routledge, 2005). Her three main research areas include
friendship in IR, security governance and regional integration. Her recent
publications appeared in Critical Review of International Social and Political
Philosophy (2007) and Security Dialogue (2009).
Antoine Vion is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Mediterranean

University in Aix-Marseille, and a member of the LEST Research Centre
Oelsner and Vion
(UMR CNRS 6123). He studies transnational dynamics in European

integration from a triple perspective: the networking of cities, the making
of ICT standards and the interlocking of MNC boards in the Eurozone.
His previous studies on city twinning and friendship were published in
Contemporary European History (2003), Revue Francaise de Science Politique
(2003) and Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
(2007).
Note
1 Later that same year Argentina, Brazil, the ABACC and the International Atomic Energy
Agency signed an agreement on full-scope safeguards, something the two states had hitherto
refused to do. In addition, by 1994 both Argentina and Brazil had ratified the Tlatelolco Treaty.
With these developments, their nuclear developments were not just transparent to one another,
but also to the rest of the world.
References
Acta de Amistad Argentino-Brasilena. Democracia, Paz y Desarrollo [Argentine-Brazilian Friend-

ship Act. Democracy, Peace and Development]. (1986) 12 December, http://www.iadb.org/Intal/
intalcdi/integracion_latinoamericana/documentos/122-Documentacion.pdf, accessed 13 July 2009.
Adler, E. and Barnett, M. (eds.) (1998) Security Communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Alfonsn, R. (1988) Discurso del Presidente de la Republica Argentina, Raul Alfonsn, en ocasion
de la firma del Tratado de Integracion, Cooperacion y Desarrollo entre Argentina y Brasil
[Speech by the President of the Argentine Republic, Raul Alfonsn, on the occasion of the
signing of the Argentine-Brazilian Treaty of Integration, Cooperation and Development].
Buenos Aires, 29 November, http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/integracion_latinoamericana/
documentos/142-Documentacion.pdf, accessed 24 January 2009.
Bickerton, C.J., Cunliffe, P. and Gourevitch, A. (eds.) (2007) Politics without Sovereignty:
A Critique of Contemporary International Relations. London: University College Press.
Biersteker, T.J. and Weber, C. (eds.) (1995) State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. and Waever, O. (2003) Regions and Power: The Structure of International Security.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., Waever, O. and Wilde, J.D. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner.
Cicourel, A.V. (1981) Micro-processes and macro-structures. Notes on articulation between
different levels of analysis. In: K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel (eds.) Advances in Social
Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro- Sociologies. Boston, MA;
London and Henley, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 5180.
Collins, R. (1981) Micro-translation as a theory-building strategy. In: K. Knorr-Cetina and
A.V. Cicourel (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of
Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. Boston, MA; London and Henley, UK: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, pp. 81108.
Constantin, C. (2011) Great friends: Creating legacies, networks and policies that perpetuate the
memory of the fathers of Europe. International Politics 48(1): 112128.
Defrance, C. (1996) Les premiers jumelages franco-allemands, 19501963. Lendemains 84:
8395.
Deschenes, D. and Patsias, C. (2011) Unsociable sociability: The paradox of Canadian-American
friendship. International Politics 48(1): 92111.
Deutsch, K. et al (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International
Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Devere, H., Mark, S. and Verbitsky, J. (2011) A history of the language of friendship in
international treaties. International Politics 48(1): 4670.
DiMaggio, P.J. (1991) Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: US art
museums, 19201940. In: P.J. DiMaggio and W.W. Powell (eds.) The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis. London: University of Chicago Press.
Elgin, C.Z. (1983) With Reference to Reference. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Elgin, C.Z. (1993) Understanding: Art and science. Synthese 95(1): 1328.
Goodman, N. and Elgin, C.Z. (1988) Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences.
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Haas, E. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 19501957. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Hall, P. and Taylor, R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies
44(5): 936957.
Hix, S. (1994) The study of the European community: The challenge to comparative politics. West
European Politics 17(1): 130.
Hettne, B. (2003) The new regionalism revisited. In: F. Soderbaum and T. Shaw (eds.) Theories of
New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, pp. 2242.
Hoffman, A. (2002) A conceptualization of trust in international relations. European Journal of
International Relations 8(3): 375401.
Hoffman, A. (2006) Building Trust. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hoffmann, S. (1966) Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western
Europe. Daedalus 95(3): 862915.
Immergut, E. (1990) Institutions, veto points, and policy results: A comparative analysis of health
care. Journal of Public Policy 10(4): 391416.
Jelin, E. (1999) Dialogues, understandings and misunderstandings: Social movements in Mercosur.
International Social Science Journal 51(159): 3748.
Krotz, U. (2002a) Social Content of the International Sphere: Symbols and Meaning in Franco-
German Relations. Cambridge, MA: Program for the Study of Germany and Europe, Harvard
University. Working Paper no. 02.2.
Krotz, U. (2002b) Ties That Bind? The Parapublic Underpinnings of Franco-German Relations as
Construction of International Value. Cambridge, MA: Program for the Study of Germany and
Europe, Harvard University. Working Paper no. 02.4.
Landau, M. (1991) On multiorganizational systems in public administration. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 1(1): 518.
Lindberg, L.N. (1963) The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. London: Oxford
University Press.
Livet, P. (1994) La Communaute Virtuelle Action et Communication. Paris: Ed. de l0 Eclat.
Livet, P. (2006) Critique de la theorie des objets sociaux selon Searle. Paper presented at the
Journee detudes John Searle, CEPERC; 1 February, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and power in the European community: A liberal intergovern-
mentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31(4): 473524.
Oelsner and Vion
Oelsner, A. (2003) Two sides of the same coin: Mutual perceptions and security community in the
case of Argentina and Brazil. In: F. Laursen (ed.) Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical
Perspectives. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 185206.
Oelsner, A. (2005) International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the Southern
Cone. New York and London: Routledge.
Oelsner, A. (2007) Friendship, mutual trust and the evolution of regional peace in the international
system. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10(2): 257279.
Oelsner, A. (2009) Consensus and governance in Mercosur: The evolution of the South American
security agenda. Security Dialogue 40(2): 191212.
Pastor, C.W. (1996) Chile: La guerra o la paz, 19781981. In: S.R. Jalabe (ed.) La Poltica Exterior
Argentina y sus Protagonistas, 18801995. Buenos Aires: CARI-Grupo Editor Latinoamericano,
pp. 259308.
Pierson, P. (1996) The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis.
Comparative Political Studies 29(2): 123163.
Pion-Berlin, D. (2000) Will soldiers follow? Economic integration and regional security in the
Southern Cone. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 42(1): 4369.
Roshchin, E. (2006) The concept of friendship: From princes to states. European Journal of
International Relations 12(4): 599624.
Roshchin, E. (2011) Friendship of the enemies: 20th century treaties of the United Kingdom and
the USSR. International Politics 48(1): 7191.
Ruggie, J. (1993) Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations.
International Organization 47(1): 139174.
Sarney, J. (1988) Discurso del Presidente de la Republica Federativa del Brasil, Jose Sarney, en
ocasion de la firma del Tratado de Integracion, Cooperacion y Desarrollo entre Argentina y
Brasil [Speech by the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Jose Sarney, on the
occasion of the signing of the Argentine-Brazilian Treaty of Integration, Cooperation and
Development]. Buenos Aires, 29 November, http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/integracion_
latinoamericana/documentos/142-Documentacion.pdf, accessed 24 January 2009.
Saurugger, S. (2008) Avons-nous besoin dune sociologie des relations internationales pour
analyser lintegration europeenne? Politique Europeenne 25: 193216.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2001) The Community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the Eastern
enlargement of the EU. International Organization 55(1): 4780.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2004) Goffman meets IR: Dramaturgical action in international community.
International Review of Sociology 12(3): 417437.
Schmitter, P. (1969) Three neo-functional hypotheses about international integration. International
Organization 23(1): 161166.
Schmitter, P. (1970) A revised theory of regional integration. International Organization 24(4):
836868.
Schmitter, P. (2004) Neo-neofunctionalism. In: A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds.) European Integration
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 4574.
Schmitter, P. and Haas, E. (1964) Economics and differential patterns of political integration:
Projections about unity in Latin America. International Organization 18(4): 705737.
Scott, R.W. (1995) Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage.
Searle, J.R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
Silver, A. (1989) Friendship and trust as moral ideas: An historical approach. European Journal of
Sociology 30(2): 274297.
Smith, G.M. (2011) Friendship and the world of states. International Politics 48(1): 1027.
Soutou, G.H. (1996) LAlliance Incertaine. Paris: Fayard.
Strong, P. (2000) On the importance of being Erving: Erving Goffman, 19221982. In: G.A. Fine
and G.W.H. Smith (eds.) Erving Goffman. London: Sage.
Viltard, Y. (2009) Que faire de la rhetorique de l0 amitie en Relations Internationales? Raisons

Politiques 33(1): 127147.
Vion, A. (2002) Europe from the bottom up: Town twinning in France during the Cold War.
Contemporary European History 11(4): 623640.
Vion, A. (2007) The institutionalization of international friendship. Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy 10(2): 281297.
Waever, O. (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: R. Lipschutz (ed.) On Security.
New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 4686.
Waever, O. (1998) Insecurity, security, and asecurity in the West European non-war community.
In: E. Adler and M. Barnett (eds.) Security Communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 69118.
Walzer, M. (1967) On the role of symbolism in political thought. Political Science Quarterly
82(2): 191204.
Willis, F.R. (1968) France, Germany and the New Europe, 19451967. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Zucca, F. (1996) Il Conseil des communes d0 Europe e il rilancio europeo di Messina.
In: L. Majocchi (ed.) Messina QuarantAnni Dopo. LAttualita del Metodo in Vista della
Conferenza Intergovernativa del 1996. Bari, Italy: Cacucci Editore, pp. 243260.

Friends in The Region. A Comparative Study On Friendship Building and Regional Integration

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Friends in The Region. A Comparative Study On Friendship Building and Regional Integration

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Original Article

Friends in the region: A comparative study on

Andrea Oelsnera,* and Antoine Vionb

Abstract The role of international friendship in regional integration be it as

Keywords: FrancoGerman relations; ArgentineBrazilian relations; regional

The role of international friendship in regional integration be it as one of

economic and political integration. Among traditional IR and regional

investigating a network or complex of friendship as both a theoretical

Thus, rather than a political objective or goal, friendship is defined as a

Friendship as a Political Process: Analytical Challenges

Friendship in international relations can be analysed as a set of institutional

Friendship in regional integration from an IR perspective

factor of peace-building. His aim to measure such progress and to link it to

the Franco-German parapublic experience of the past half century

activity of common value gluing in mainly interest-based international

[a]rguments that focus on the security dilemma are often difficult to

Trust and affinity

Karl Deutschs (1957) empirical ambition remains problematic. His emphasis

On a pragmatic level, proofs of engagement constitute here the cognitive

Friendship as a Cumulative Process

The study of friendship as a cumulative process presupposes to pick out

Enacting friendship through different political spheres

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

Vol. 48, 1, 129151

Background to the case studies

references to German militarism in France caused grievances among those

antagonism. It was during the early periods of political rapprochement that

Expressing mutual commitment: The performative property of friendship

The political dynamics through which expressions of mutual engagement arose

commented as exemplar by its promoters, and severely criticized by its

Managing common practices: The transformative property of friendship

communities played a pivotal role too, as they coordinated these institutional

Similarly, after 1990 the economic integration project accelerated when

IR and International Friendship: Some Conclusions

The comparison of the two cases reviewed here helps to understand

function as exemplar experiences all pragmatic dimensions of cooperation

integration, which without their relational transformation would not have

We would like to thank Michael Cox, Sabine Saurugger, Graham Smith,

About the Authors

Andrea Oelsner is Lecturer of International Relations in the Department of

Antoine Vion is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Mediterranean

(UMR CNRS 6123). He studies transnational dynamics in European

Acta de Amistad Argentino-Brasilena. Democracia, Paz y Desarrollo [Argentine-Brazilian Friend-

Viltard, Y. (2009) Que faire de la rhetorique de l0 amitie en Relations Internationales? Raisons

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi