Regional security complex theory (NSCT)
RSCT uses a mixture of constructivist and materialist approaches. On the materialist
side it forms ideas of bounded territoriality and distribution of power that are close to those in
neorealism39. But it contradicts the tendency of most neorealist analysis to concentrate heavily
on the global/system level superiority. B.Buzan challenges conventional neorealism and
persuasively argues that power theorists underplay the importance of the regional level in
international relations40. According to Buzan’s and Weaver’s criticism, orthodox Waltzian’s
often make the error of explaining developments in a given region directly from the global power
distribution, but the relevant power structure for the main actors in a region is the regional one41.
Authors stress the significance of regional level for security analysis, in this level “the extremes
of national and global security interplay, and most of the action occurs”42. Both the security of
the separate units and the process of global power intervention can be grasped only through
understanding the regional security dynamics43. The relative autonomy of regional security is
constructing a pattern of international security relations radically different from the rigid
structure of superpower bipolarity that defined the Col War.
RSCT combine “ouside –in” and “inside-out” analysis by distinguishing between
superpowers, great powers which transcend two or more regions and regional powers whose
sphere of action largely contained within a single RSC. RSCT focus on security interdependence
negative (conflict formation) or positive (security regime, security community). It uses structure
at the regional level (boundaries, anarchy-hierarchy, power polarity, discourses of amity and
enmity- securitization and desecritization) both as a benchmark to assess significant change, and
as a basis for identifying the most likely pattern of evolution44. Regional dynamics are shaped