From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terrorism like that on September 11 is one of the concerns of international security.
[clarification needed]
International security consists of the measures taken by nations and international organizations, such as the
United Nations,
to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military
action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions.
International and
national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.
With the end of
World War II,
a new subject of study focusing on international security emerged. It
began as an independent field of study, but was absorbed as a sub-field
of
international relations.
[1] Since it took hold in the 1950s, the study of international security has been at the heart of international relations studies.
[2] It covers labels like “security studies”, “strategic studies”, “peace studies”, and others.
There is no universal definition of the concept of security, but
concepts in international security studies have been defined, such as
sovereignty,
war,
anarchy,
security dilemma, etc. The meaning of "security" is often treated as a common sense term that can be understood by "unacknowledged consensus".
[3]
As there is no universal concept, the content of international security
has expanded over the years. Today it covers a variety of
interconnected issues in the world that have an impact on survival. It
ranges from the traditional or conventional modes of military power, the
causes and consequences of war between states, economic strength, to
ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic
conflicts, energy supplies,
science and technology, food, as well as threats to
human security and the stability of states from
environmental degradation, infectious diseases,
climate change and the activities of
non-state actors.
[4]
While the wide perspective of international security regards
everything as a security matter, the traditional approach focuses mainly
or exclusively on military concerns.
[1]
[edit] Concepts of security in the international arena
There is no universal definition of the concept of security. Edward Kolodziej has compared it to a
Tower of Babel.
[5] Roland Paris (2004) views it as “in the eye of the beholder”.
[6]
But there is a consensus that it is important and multidimensional. It
has been widely applied to “justify suspending civil liberties, making
war, and massively reallocating resources during the last fifty years”.
[7]
Walter Lippmann (1944) views security as the capability of a country to protect its
core values, both in terms that a state need not sacrifice core values in avoiding war and can maintain them by winning war.
[8] David Baldwin (1997) argues that pursuing security sometimes requires sacrificing other values, including
marginal values and
prime values.
[7] Richard Ullman (1983) has suggested that a decrease in vulnerability is security.
[9]
Arnold Wolfers (1952) argues that “security” is generally a
normative
term. It is applied by nations “in order to be either expedient - a
rational means toward an accepted end - or moral, the best or least evil
course of action”.
[10]
In the same way that people are different in sensing and identifying
danger and threats, Wolfers argues that different nations also have
different expectations of security. Not only is there a difference
between forbearance of threats, but different nations also face
different levels of threats because of their unique geographical,
economic, ecological, and political environment.
Barry Buzan
(2000) views the study of international security as more than a study
of threats, but also a study of which threats that can be tolerated and
which require immediate action.
[11] He sees the concept of security as not either power or peace, but something in between.
[12]
The concept of an international security actor has extended in all
directions since the 1990s, from nations to groups, individuals,
international systems, NGOs, and local governments.
[13]
[edit] National and regional variations
The United States is focusing on "renewing American leadership so
that [it] can more effectively advance [its] interests" under the
international system.
[14]
This is achieved by integrating all the elements of its power and means
of defence, diplomacy and development to meet its objectives, including
safety, welfare, values, and a righteous international order.
[15]
China thinks that "international security should be mutual while not
one-sided, multilateral while not unilateral, and comparative while not
absolute.... Security should be based on mutual trust. A country’s role
should be evaluated objectively and one country should not seek
confrontation with another country through exaggerating its threats."
[16]
China views the safeguarding of national sovereignty and territorial
integrity, solving border disputes with its neighbours on the basis of
equal negotiation and mutual trust, and having the ability to cope with
traditional threats as three prerequisites to its security concept.
Russia's aim is to protect the national interests of its people,
society and nation in broad security terms. It seeks to form a
multipolar world "on the basis of multilateral management of
international economic, political, science and technological,
environmental and information integration". In a world dominated by
US-led unilateralism, Russia continues to "play an important role in
global processes by virtue of its great economic, scientific,
technological and military potential and its unique strategic location
on the Eurasian continent".
[17]
The
European Union has formed a broad security concept and a multilateral approach with the objectives:
[18]
- to extend the zone of security around Europe;
- to strengthen the international order.
Many countries in South America, especially Brazil, Argentina and
Chile, treats strategic stability as its core concept. In terms of
traditional security, South American countries tend to solve disputes by
peaceful resolution. During the second half of the twentieth century,
only two interstate wars occurred in South America. Non-intervention is
still a core value in South America, although human rights and
humanitarian crises, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and even state failure have become causes of concern.
[19]
The Australian security concept is to safeguard the homeland,
maintain regional and international stability, ensure international
economy and trade developments and to spread human rights and democracy.
Australian security strategy is mainly based on its alliances with the
United States and Japan.
[20]
Africa seeks to promote and maintain international peace, security
and prosperity by having closer cooperation and partnership between the
United Nations, other international organizations and the
African Union.
[21]
[edit] Traditional security
[edit] Introduction
The traditional security paradigm refers to a
realist
construct of security in which the referent object of security is the
state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the
Cold War. For almost half a century, major world powers entrusted the security of their nation to a
balance of power
among states. In this sense international stability relied on the
premise that if state security is maintained, then the security of
citizens will necessarily follow.
[22]
Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a
military build-up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the
two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation state.
[23] States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power.
[23] Security was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities.
As
Cold War
tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens was
threatened by hardships arising from internal state activities as well
as external aggressors.
Civil wars
were increasingly common and compounded existing poverty, disease,
hunger, violence and human rights abuses. Traditional security policies
had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face of
state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had
failed in their primary objective.
[24]
More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security.
[25]
Among the approaches which seeks to acknowledge and address these basic
threats to human safety are paradigms that include cooperative,
comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the
individual and, as a result, for the state.
To enhance international security against potential threats caused by
terrorism and organized crime, there have been an increase in
international cooperation, resulting in
transnational policing. The international police
Interpol
shares information across international borders and this cooperation
has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Internet and the ability
to instantly transfer documents, films and photographs worldwide.
[edit] Theoretical approaches
[edit] Realism
[edit] Classical realism
In the field of international relations,
realism has long been a dominant theory, from ancient military theories of Chinese and Greek thinkers to
Hobbes,
Machiavelli and
Rousseau.
It is the foundation of contemporary international security studies.
The twentieth century classical realism is mainly derived from
Edward Hallett Carr's book
The Twenty Years' Crisis.
[26] The realist views
anarchy
and the absence of a power to regulate the interactions between states
as the distinctive characteristics of international politics. Because of
anarchy, or a constant state of antagonism, the international system
differs from the domestic system.
[27]
Realism has a variety of sub-schools whose lines of thought are based
on three core assumptions: groupism, egoism, and power-centrism.
[28] According to classical realists, bad things happen because the people who make foreign policy are sometimes bad.
[29]
[edit] Neorealism
Beginning in the 1960s, with increasing criticism of realism,
Kenneth Waltz
tried to revive the traditional realist theory by translating some core
realist ideas into a deductive, top-down theoretical framework that
eventually came to be called neorealism.
[28] Theory of International Politics[30]
brought together and clarified many earlier realist ideas about how the
features of the overall system of states affects the way states
interact:
- "Neorealism answers questions: Why the modern states-system has
persisted in the face of attempts by certain states at dominance; why
war among great powers recurred over centuries; and why states often
find cooperation hard. In addition, the book forwarded one more specific
theory: that great-power war would tend to be more frequent in
multipolarity (an international system shaped by the power of three or
more major states) than bipolarity (an international system shaped by
two major states, or superpowers)."[31]
The main theories of neorealism are
balance of power theory,
balance of threat theory,
security dilemma theory,
offense-defense theory,
hegemonic stability theory and
power transition theory.
[edit] Liberalism
Liberalism has a shorter history than realism but has been a prominent theory since
World War I. It is a concept with a variety of meanings. Liberal thinking dates back to philosophers such as
Thomas Paine and
Immanuel Kant, who argued that
republican constitutions produce peace. Kant's concept of
Perpetual Peace is arguably seen as the starting point of contemporary liberal thought.
[32]
[edit] Economic liberalism
Economic liberalism assumes that economic openness and
interdependence between countries makes them more peaceful than
countries who are isolated. Eric Gartzke has written that economic
freedom is 50 times more effective than democracy in creating peace.
[33] Globalization has been important to economic liberalism.
[edit] Liberal institutionalism
Liberal institutionalism views international institutions as the main
factor to avoid conflicts between nations. Liberal institutionalists
argue that; although the anarchic system presupposed by realists cannot
be made to disappear by institutions; the international environment that
is constructed can influence the behavior of states within the system.
[34] Varieties of
international governmental organizations (IGOs) and
international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are seen as contributors to world peace.
[edit] Comparison between realism and liberalism
Realist and liberal security systems[35]
| Theoretical base |
|
Realist (alliance) |
Liberal (community of law) |
| Structure of the international system |
|
Material; static; anarchic; self-help system |
Social; dynamic; governance without government |
| Conceptions of security |
Basic principles |
Accumulation of power |
Integration |
|
Strategies |
Military deterrence; control of allies |
Democratization; conflict resolution; rule of Law |
| Institutional features |
Functional scope |
Military realm only |
Multiple issue areas |
|
Criterion for membership |
Strategic relevance |
Democratic system of rule |
|
Internal power structure |
Reflects distribution of power; most likely hegemonic |
Symmetrical; high degree of interdependence |
|
Decision-making |
Will of dominant power prevails |
Democratically legitimized |
| Relation of system to its environment |
|
Dissociated; perception of threat |
Serves as an attractive model; open for association |
[edit] Constructivism
Since its founding in the 1980s,
constructivism has become an influential approach in international security studies. “It is less a theory of
international relations or security, however, than a broader social theory which then informs how we might approach the study of security.”
[36] Constructivists argue that
security is a
social construction.
They emphasize the importance of social, cultural and historical
factors, which leads to different actors construing similar events
differently.
[edit] Prominent thinkers
Alexander Wendt –
Constructivism
Edward Hallett Carr –
Classical realism
Hans J. Morgenthau –
Classical realism
Immanuel Kant –
Kantian liberalism
John Mearsheimer –
Neorealism
Kathryn Sikkink –
Constructivism
Kenneth Waltz –
Neorealism
Machiavelli –
Classical realism
Peter J. Katzenstein –
Constructivism
Robert Axelrod –
Liberal institutionalism
Robert Gilpin –
Neorealism
Robert Jervis –
Neorealism
Robert Keohane –
Liberal institutionalism
Thomas Hobbes –
Classical realism
Thucydides –
Classical realism
[edit] Human security
Main article:
Human security
Human security derives from the traditional concept of security from military threats to the safety of people and communities.
[37] It is an extension of mere existence (survival) to well-being and dignity of human beings.
[37] Human security is an emerging school of thought about the practice of international security. There is no single definition of
human security, it varies from “ a narrow term of prevention of violence to a broad comprehensive viewthat proposes development,
human rights
and traditional security together.” Critics of the concept of human
security claim that it covers almost everything and that it is too broad
to be the focus of research. There have also been criticisms of its
challenge to the role of states and their sovereignty.
[37]
Human security offers a critique of and advocates an alternative to
the traditional state-based conception of security. Essentially, it
argues that the proper referent for security is the individual and that
state practices should reflect this rather than primarily focusing on
securing borders through unilateral military action. The justification
for the human security approach is said to be that the traditional
conception of security is no longer appropriate or effective in the
highly interconnected and interdependent modern world in which global
threats such as poverty, environmental degradation, and terrorism
supersede the traditional security threats of interstate attack and
warfare. Further, state-interest-based arguments for human security
propose that the international system is too interconnected for the
state to maintain an
isolationist
international policy. Therefore, it argues that a state can best
maintain its security and the security of its citizens by ensuring the
security of others. It is need to be noted that without the traditional
security no human security can be assured.
Traditional vs Human Security[23]
| Type of security |
Referent |
Responsibility |
Threats |
| Traditional |
The state |
Integrity of the state |
Interstate war, nuclear proliferation, revolution, civil conflict |
| Human |
The individual |
Integrity of the individual |
Disease, poverty, natural disaster, violence, landmines, human rights abuses |
[edit] UNDP human security proposal
The 1994
UNDP Human Development Report (HDR)
[38] proposes that increasing human security entails:
- Investing in human development, not in arms;
- Engaging policy makers to address the emerging peace dividend;
- Giving the United Nations a clear mandate to promote and sustain development;
- Enlarging the concept of development cooperation so that it includes all flows, not just aid;
- Agreeing that 20 percent of national budgets and 20 percent of foreign aid be used for human development; and
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
The report elaborates on seven components to human security. Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy list them as follows:
Components of human security as per the HDR 1994 report[39]
| Type of security |
Definition |
Threats |
| Economic security |
An assured basic income |
Poverty, unemployment, indebtedness, lack of income |
| Food security |
Physical and economic access to basic food |
Hunger, famines and the lack of physical and economic access to basic food |
| Health security |
Protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles |
Inadequate health care, new and recurrent diseases including
epidemics and pandemics, poor nutrition and unsafe environment, unsafe
lifestyles |
| Environmental security |
Healthy physical environment |
Environmental degradation, natural disasters, pollution and resource depletion |
| Personal security |
Security from physical violence |
From the state (torture), other states (war), groups of people
(ethnic tension), individuals or gangs (crime), industrial, workplace or
traffic accidents |
| Community security |
Safe membership in a group |
From the group (oppressive practices), between groups (ethnic
violence), from dominant groups (e.g. indigenous people vulnerability) |
| Political security |
Living in a society that honors basic human rights |
Political or state repression, including torture, disappearance, human rights violations, detention and imprisonment |
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ a b Buzan, B. and L. Hansen (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Sheehan, M. (2005). International Security: An Analytical Survey. London, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- ^ Sheehan, M. (2005), International Security: and Analytical Survey, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers
- ^ Buzen, B., O. Wæver, et al. (1998). Security: A new frame work for Analysis. Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner Publishers.; Doty, P., A. Carnesale, et al. (1976). "Foreword." International Security 1(1).
- ^ Kolodziej, E. (2005). Security and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.P.11
- ^ Paris, R. (2004). "Still and Inscrutable Concept", Security Dialogue 35: 370-372.
- ^ a b Baldwin, D. (1997). "The concept of Security." Review of International studies 23: 5-26
- ^ Lippmann, W. (1944). U.S. Foreign Policy. London, Hamish Hamilton
- ^ Ullman, R. (1983). "Redefining Security." International Security 8(1): 129-153
- ^ Wolfers, A. (1952). ""National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol." Political Science Quarterly 67(4): 481-502.
- ^ Buzan, B. (2000). 'Change and Insecurity' reconsidered. Critical Reflection on Security and Change. S. Croft and T. Terriff. Oxen, Frank Cass Publishers.
- ^ Buzan, B. (2007). People, States & Fear. Colchester, ECPR.
- ^ Rothschild, E. (1995). "What is Security." Dædalus 124(3): 53-98.
- ^ White House (2010). National Security Strategy.www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/.../national_security_strategy.pdf
- ^ Clinton, H. (2010). "Remarks On the Obama Administration's National Security Strategy." Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/05/142312.htm.
- ^ Fu, M. (2005). "China's Development and Security Concept." Beijing Review 48(23): 18-19.
- ^ Anonymous (2000). "Russia's National Security concept." Arms Control Today 30(1): 15-20.
- ^ Quille, G. (2004). "The European Security Strategy: A Framework for EU Security Interests?" International Peacekeeping 11(3): 422-438.
- ^ Herz, M. (2010). "Concepts of Security in South America." International Peacekeeping 17(5): 598-612.
- ^ McDougall, D. and P. Shearman, Eds. (2006). Australian Security after 9/11: New and Old Agendas. Burlington, Ashgate Publishing.
- ^
AU (2002). "Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and
Security Council of the African Union ". Retrieved June 14, 2011, from [1]
- ^
Bajpai, K. 2000, Human Security: Concept and Measurement, University of
Notre Dame, Kroc Institute Occasional Paper no. 19 Accessed 29/04/06
at: <www.nd.edu/~krocinst/ocpapers/op_19_1.PDF
- ^ a b c
Owen, T. (2004), Challenges and opportunities for defining and
measuring human security’, Human Rights, Human Security and Disarmament,
Disarmament Forum. 3, 15-24
- ^
J. Baylis, 1997, International Security in the Post-Cold War Era, in
John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- ^ Strategy and Ethnic Conflict (ISBN 027597636X) and Path to Peace (ISBN 1590337328) among many others)
- ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies:and Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
- ^ Morgan, P. (2007). Security in Interantional Politics: Traditional Approaches. Contemporary Security Studies. A. Collins. New York, Oxford University Press.
- ^ a b Wohlforth, W. C. (2010). Realism and Security Studies. The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. M. D. Cavelty and V. Mauer. New York, Routledge.
- ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
- ^ Waltz, K. Z. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York, Random House.
- ^ The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press. 2008. p. 137. ISBN 978-0199219322.
- ^ Navari, C. (2008). Liberalism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.;Rousseau, D. L. (2010). Liberalism. The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. M. D. Cavelty and V. Mauer. New York, Routledge.
- ^ Gartzke, E. (2005), 'Economic Freedom and Peace' in Economic Freedom of the World, Annual Report. pp. 29-44
- ^ Navari, C. (2008). Liberalism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
- ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge. p. 42.
- ^ McDonald, M. (2008). Constructivism. Security Studies: an Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
- ^ a b c Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. Chenoy (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. New York, Routledge.
- ^ UNDP (1994). Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/chapters/
- ^ Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. Chenoy (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. New York, Routledge. pp. 128-129.
[edit] External links
The error message above can occur when 3rd-party Access has been
disabled in your AdSense account. To re-enable access to your AdSense
account by Blogger, please log in to your AdSense account, and click the
Account Settings link. You'll see an enable access
link next to blogger.com, you must click this link in order to create
ads with Blogger tools. You will then be able to log back into
blogger.com and continue setting up AdSense from the Earnings tab.
See Also: 
Life insurance as low as $14/mo for $250,000 or $21/mo for $500,000 of coverage. Contact MetLife®
Give the gift of Entrepreneur this holiday season
Comments:
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Add New Comment
Showing 2 comments