Key points from Essay:
Barry Buzan = “International Security Studies (ISS) grew out of debates over how to protect the
state against external and internal threats after the Second World War”.
The Classical Realist ideology dominated the International Relations theories for a period of time
due to it’s rising popularity in the Cold War, serving as the ‘traditionalist view’ in Security Studies
due to their previously unchallenged view on politics in the world stage.
In the Golden Age of Security, as Buzan deems it, strategy and military obsession was deemed
it’s most important topic, as security became synonymous with defence and force and military
preparedness became key components in a critiquing a state's security capability.
Using all of these characteristics, Walt summed up the traditionalist view by stating that, “Security
Studies may be defined as the threat, use and control of military force”.
According to Buzan, though, this simple ‘use of force’ answer was becoming too simplistic by the
1970’s. This approach relies on the assumption that the State’s security guarantees the peoples
security.
In 1983, Buzan pointed out that, “security was an ‘underdeveloped concept’ and ‘seldom
addressed in terms other than the policy interests of particular actors or groups, and the
discussion [had] a heavy military emphasis”.
The Evolution of Security Studies’, Buzan further added that ISS started to distinguish itself from
the previous notions of Military History / War Studies, and expanded into a variety of fields in
search for the new ‘widening’ definition of Security.
Neo-realists maintain their stance that the pursuit of power is one of the main aims of the State,
but they diverge from Classical Realists as they accept that military strength isn’t the only answer
to security.
States have historically waged wars and gained great amounts of strength by working on their
economies, encompassing ideas of International Political Economy and demonstrating how
Security Studies is a multidimensional field that reaches far beyond the limitations of military
power.
Marxism took this analysis a step further, by claiming that military strategy ‘serves global
economic interests’ as economic concerns are what determines the fate of states and their
citizens, showing how military strategy can also be seen as a minor part of Security Studies.
Hough = “broader approach to conceptualising global security gained ground in the 1990s when
the end of the Cold War seemed … to herald a new era of international politics”.
Richard Ullman (the earliest ‘wideners’) = ‘demographic pressures and resource depletion’
needed to be taken as seriously as military threats
Jessica Tuchman = commented on the need to take environmental problems as threats to
National Security.
“it is not clear how the military forces can help reduce the buildup of green house gases in the
atmosphere” (Wirtz).
“issues of security need to be staged as existential threats to a referent object by a
securitising actor who thereby generates endorsement of emergency measures beyond
rules that would normally bind”
This analysis represented a singificant shift from traditionalist, ‘narrow’ conception of security
(HOUGH).
Key points from SG:
Hobbes = without security ‘there is no place for industry... no arts, no letters, no society; and
which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death. Insecurity is associated with war
and the threat of war; security is associated with peace and stability.
The desire for security is a defensive and self-protecting response to the fact or threat of harm
from other human beings. It is precisely because human nature is flawed that perfect security
cannot exist in any human society. The necessity of security arises from the fact that people do
want to live together and are thus vulnerable to each other.
4 Key Questions: Security of what, from what, by means of what and for what.
Hobbes: We put locks on our doors and alarms on our houses to keep out those who would
otherwise take our possessions or in other ways rob us of that which we hold dear. Security can
be achieved in two ways: through deterrence on the part of the would-be protector or diffidence
on the part of would-be attacker.5
‘Leviathan’ can only come about if individual men and women are prepared to exchange their
personal freedom to individually protect themselves for protection by the sovereign. So,
paradoxically, at the very moment that ‘leviathan’ resolves the problem of personal security within
the state, it creates a new problem of insecurity between states.
Personal security is an essential precondition for human flourishing. It frees people to pursue their
own interests, goals, ambitions etc. without the fear of harm by others.
Ken Booth = Security and emancipation are the same, as its emancipation, not power and order,
that leads to stable security.
Security of the state refers to a state’s ability to protect itself from external dangers and menaces.
The goal of state security is to deter, prevent or defeat attacks against the state and its
population.
The problem of national security arises out of this anarchical world view, that is, a world of
independent and armed states which are capable of inflicting harm upon one another. National
security policies are directed at creating and maintaining armed forces for national defence and
deterrence.
The state not only belongs to the people but is in fact a creation of the people; it is the people’s
government, the people’s law, the people’s army, the people’s police, the people’s courts and
ultimately the people’s prisons and even the people’s gallows. Therefore, in theory at least, the
state cannot pose a threat to its own citizens whose personal interests are synonymous with state
interests.
International Security sees a world characterised by a mixture of conflict and cooperation. From
this perspective, relations between states constitute an ‘anarchical society’. Pluralists differ from
realists in their assumption that states are not the only actors responsible for providing security.
Instead, pluralists believe the responsibility for providing security also extends to international
society.
Article 1 of UN human charter of 1945: “To maintain international peace and security, and to
that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace”
In practice, however, International law enforcement is often highly controversial precisely because
it would potentially sacrifice the national security of one state member of international society for
the good of the whole society.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq by US-led forces is a case in point. The military attack and consequent
occupation of the independent and sovereign state of Iraq was not authorised by the United
Nations Security Council and, for that and other reasons, many experts in international law
consider these acts to be illegal. In contrast, the so-called Gulf War of 1990−91 is usually cited as
one of the few examples of legitimate international law enforcement both because it was done
with prior UN Security Council authorisation and because it received almost universal support by
the members of international society.
Human security is often presented as a new perspective on security questions. To describe
human security in this way is somewhat deceptive because there are historical precedents
for assigning moral primacy to individuals.
Kant describes a ‘universal right of mankind’ by which he means the legitimate claim of all men
and women to recognition and protection by public authorities as individual human beings (thru
un charters etc).
Security of the Prince: In this world view, security of the state was synonymous with security
of the prince, where political rule was the imposition of the prince’s will. The state was the
personal property of the prince, and the prince would use violence to defend and indeed extend
that property. “The King is emperor of his own land” - inherited the state (seen as mere territory)
thru war, conflict, marriage etc.
Security of the People: Principle of popular sovereignty began to emerge in England in the late
17th Century, as earlier forms of authority were challenged by reformers and political theorists.
These changes were due to the evolution of social behaviour, caused by the enlightenment and
such.
New conceptualisation of power - power cant be entrusted to one man or a few because it can be
abused. This change came with the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man - principle of
sovereignty lies in the hands of all, not just the prince. One can argue that this change was
created due to the rising popularity fo self determination, which in turn, lead to the right of popular
rebellion.
Key points from Hough:
“it has become a matter of contention amongst theories of IR whether SS should maintain it’s
traditional emphasis on military threats to the security of states” (Hough).
National interest = governments need to act accordingly to the interests of their own people, even
if this conflicts with the interests of other states and peoples. Morgenthau - the fundamental aim
of foreign policy must be to ensure: ‘the integrity of the nation’s territory, of its political institutions
and of its culture’.
individual concerns like health, welfare (low politics) should be kept away from high politics.
The security of one’s own state is likely to be enhanced at the expense of another state, through
the security dilemma. The balance of power keeps a sense of order to the anarchical society of
states through the mutual interest of the most powerful among them to work together and
preserve the status quo.
Pluralism came into power and ‘low politics’ issues were becoming international as well as
domestic problems. Ir could no longer assume all that happens in the world as related to military
might. There are many non-military issues overshadowed by military.
Marxists see that military strategy serves global economic interests over national security, as wars
are fought to preserve or maintain exploitative economic systems.
“Anti-New World Order’ thesis - traditionalists, like Mearsheimer, say that we will soon miss the
cold war and that we need to go back to the basics for security studies, since superpowers now
need to rediscover lost arts of multilateral diplomacy, conflict resolution, fighting limited wars and
conventional defence (Chapman). Ayoob = internal threats more dangerous for LDCs.
State centrism is due to the ‘fetishisation of the state’ (Wyn-Jones). Thus, we see the obsession
with the state as the main securitising actor. Adopting the securitisation framework, ‘the notion of
security [strips] away the need for the analyst to speculate on what they think is the most
threatening, … instead … analysing how and why certain issues are vital and responded to the
way they are.
Walter Lipmann = “A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests
to avoid war’
Key points from Bain Chapter 2: (ROBERT JACKSON)
‘Security’ is derived from the Latin word securitas, aka being free from care, apprehension or
anxiety, or alarm’. Hedley Bull sees Security in IR as safety - either through objective or
subjective safety.
Arranging security for people is one of the most fundamental political acts - but the language of
security shows us a reality about the human condition - people must live among each other, but
not everyone can be counted on to live in peace.
Hobbes
“The safety of the people is the supreme law’. Governments were formed for the sake of peace,
which is sought for safety. War is the greatest source of inecurity; building and maintaining the
foundations of a safe society are among the most important duties of a ruler.
If safety is fundamental to human well-being, and if the enforcement of law = safety, then law is
supreme and must be obeyed. Primary responsibilities of rulers is to defend against external
enemies and preserve inner peace.
Hobbes argues that all men possess the right to use any means and to do any action by which he
can preserve himself (Leviathan). So there is a natural right of self defence.
Hobbes = it is reasonable to transfer our means of defence to a protecter, who can do a more
adequate job at providing us security. Hobbes believes that the sovereign possesses two things:
the sword of justice (the right of punishing) and the sword of war (right to compel citizens to
take up arms for natioanl security).
The ruler must be absolute - otherwise controversies and quarrels could lead to insecurity and
war. Hobbes also could not see reliable defence with the people having the right to arms, as they
might disrupt the flow of peace and take matters into their own hands.
Security is the normative kernel of state sovereignty = Sovereignty relies on it, and can fail as an
arrangement without it. Without a foundation of security and order, no constitution can be
safeguarded for long - fundamental aspect of hobbesian political thought.
Security is a fundamental justification of state sovereignty, with a legal and moral connection. But
if a government fails to provide the safety, or people demonstrate against the government risking
national security, they both are going against the law.
Grotians
The creation of an international sovereign through a social contract doesnt provide an escape
from war, it does not suck as much as the state of nature does. International anarchy is
burdensome and demanding, but it is also tolerable and manageable. The lives of the men are
not solirtary, and not necessarily poor, nasty, brutish or short.
States are at liberty to enter into mutual assistance pacts ad other things to bolster their security.
Hobbes would not regard international law as true law because there is no sovereign armed with
swords to enforce it.
Grotians = it is reasonable and necesarry to insist that sovereign states can form associations to
enhance their security, to form a political and moral quasi-society known as the international
society. Sovereign states can bind themselves to each other without surrendering their
sovereignty.
Membership in this society doesn’t entail the surrender nor the diminishment of
sovereignty. Take NATO for example. Article 5 of the pacta sunt servanda of NatO states
that alliances are NOT based on equal capabilities of allies, but based on equal sovereignty
and shared military responsibilities. That is a Grotian world, where states associate and act
jointly without amalgamating and surrendering independence.
National Security can be obtained, not only by sovereign states acting individually, but also by
states acting together.
Kant
Sovereing governments are understood to enjoy a constitutional right to rule and popular rebellion
is deemed to be in the highest degree wrong. But Kant argues against the states right to war is
intolerable, as it is provisional.
International right involves not only the relationship between one state and another within a larger
whole, but also the relationship between individual persons.
Kant sees the responsibility for providing security for individuals based on membership in the
community, distinctive from national and intl. security, through sovereign statehood and
international society.
He notes a cosmopolitan right - universal right of mankind, that everyone has a legitimate claim
and must be protected regardless of citizenship. He argues that systematic human rights
violations can not go unpunished if security in fuller human meaning is to prevail on earth.
He also exposes the notable quasi-states, who are conspicious for being secure internationally,
but the citiznes in these places are at pround risk domestically.
The society of states is a community of both states and citizens.
Robert Jackson
Hobbes assumes that people are responsible for looking after themselves, but the Kantian voice
says that people are responsible for looking after themselves and the liberty of others.
Jackson believes in the doctrine of intl. pluralism based on sovereign state jurisdiction - sees
human rights as an undertaking by sovereign governments to uphold such rights in their own
jurisd. , but not as an undetaking to confer on a foreign power through intervention.
Paternalism is the policy of protecting people from themselves by interfering in self detemination,
but Kant says this is greatest inconcievable despotism, and treats adults like children - not giving
them responsibility for their own lives and suspends their own will.