International security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Global Security" redirects here. For the website of that name, see GlobalSecurity.org. For the academic journal, see International Security.

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]

Contents  [hide]  1 Concepts of security in the international arena 1.1 National and regional variations 2 Traditional security 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Theoretical approaches 2.2.1 Realism 2.2.1.1 Classical realism 2.2.1.2 Neorealism 2.2.2 Liberalism 2.2.2.1 Economic liberalism 2.2.2.2 Liberal institutionalism 2.2.3 Comparison between realism and liberalism 2.2.4 Constructivism 2.2.5 Prominent thinkers 3 Human security 3.1 UNDP human security proposal 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

[edit] Concepts of security in the international arena

See also: National security#Definitions

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 tackle threats;

• 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

Main article: International relations theory

[edit] Realism

[edit] Classical realism

Main article: Classical realism in international relations theory

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

Main article: Neorealism (international relations)

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

Main article: Liberalism in international relations theory

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

Main article: 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

Main article: Constructivism (international relations)

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

• Democratic peace theory
• Peace and conflict studies
• Violent non-state actor

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b} Buzan, B. and L. Hansen (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
2. ^ Sheehan, M. (2005). International Security: An Analytical Survey. London, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
3. ^ Sheehan, M. (2005), International Security: and Analytical Survey, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers
4. ^ 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).
5. ^ Kolodziej, E. (2005). Security and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.P.11
6. ^ Paris, R. (2004). "Still and Inscrutable Concept", Security Dialogue 35: 370-372.
7. ^ ^{a b} Baldwin, D. (1997). "The concept of Security." Review of International studies 23: 5-26
8. ^ Lippmann, W. (1944). U.S. Foreign Policy. London, Hamish Hamilton
9. ^ Ullman, R. (1983). "Redefining Security." International Security 8(1): 129-153
10. ^ Wolfers, A. (1952). ""National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol." Political Science Quarterly 67(4): 481-502.
11. ^ Buzan, B. (2000). 'Change and Insecurity' reconsidered. Critical Reflection on Security and Change. S. Croft and T. Terriff. Oxen, Frank Cass Publishers.
12. ^ Buzan, B. (2007). People, States & Fear. Colchester, ECPR.
13. ^ Rothschild, E. (1995). "What is Security." Dædalus 124(3): 53-98.
14. ^ White House (2010). National Security Strategy.www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/.../national_security_strategy.pdf
15. ^ 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.
16. ^ Fu, M. (2005). "China's Development and Security Concept." Beijing Review 48(23): 18-19.
17. ^ Anonymous (2000). "Russia's National Security concept." Arms Control Today 30(1): 15-20.
18. ^ Quille, G. (2004). "The European Security Strategy: A Framework for EU Security Interests?" International Peacekeeping 11(3): 422-438.
19. ^ Herz, M. (2010). "Concepts of Security in South America." International Peacekeeping 17(5): 598-612.
20. ^ McDougall, D. and P. Shearman, Eds. (2006). Australian Security after 9/11: New and Old Agendas. Burlington, Ashgate Publishing.
21. ^ AU (2002). "Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union ". Retrieved June 14, 2011, from [1]
22. ^ 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
23. ^ ^{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
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.
25. ^ Strategy and Ethnic Conflict (ISBN 027597636X) and Path to Peace (ISBN 1590337328) among many others)
26. ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies:and Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
27. ^ Morgan, P. (2007). Security in Interantional Politics: Traditional Approaches. Contemporary Security Studies. A. Collins. New York, Oxford University Press.
28. ^ ^{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.
29. ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
30. ^ Waltz, K. Z. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York, Random House.
31. ^ The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press. 2008. p. 137. ISBN 978-0199219322. 
32. ^ 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.
33. ^ Gartzke, E. (2005), 'Economic Freedom and Peace' in Economic Freedom of the World, Annual Report. pp. 29-44
34. ^ Navari, C. (2008). Liberalism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
35. ^ Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge. p. 42.
36. ^ McDonald, M. (2008). Constructivism. Security Studies: an Introduction. P. D. William. New York, Routledge.
37. ^ ^{a b c} Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. Chenoy (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. New York, Routledge.
38. ^ UNDP (1994). Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/chapters/
39. ^ Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. Chenoy (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. New York, Routledge. pp. 128-129.

[edit] External links