Security Studies and International Relations

Security for whom?

Security Security studies Key assumptions of security Value of security Three paradigms of security Periodization of the development of Security

Studies

Define Security&Policy

Security – Condition or means of protection or assurance from harm or threat

Policy- A broad course of action or statements of guidance adopted by relevant authorities in pursuit of objectives

Security Studies?? Security studies as the sub discipline of the

IR. Security studies as the study of threat, use

and control of military power. (Walt 1991) Security studies study insecurity and its

sources more than security. (Krause- Williams 1997)

Security Studies Presupposed the conflict among states and

communities and recently the conflicts in the community itself.

Security studies study even non-state actors and the security threats whose sources is difficult to determine – organized crime, international terrorism, lack of food, HIV, global warming, birds flue, poverty

Conceptualisation of security

I. Conceptualisation based on the three traditions of the INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS theories: A. Realist (National Security) B. Rationalist (International Security) C. Revolutionary (Human Security)

International Relations Traditions

A. REALIST Machiavelli, Hobbes. The international relations is the

state of war of everyone against everyone. International relations is a zero sum game, they mean the conflicts among states, the interest of one state rules out the interest of another state. The state does not bear any responsibility for its actions. There is no international community, the international politics has anarchist character. Everything heads towards the securing of the own state security and strengthening of the own power. The only rules and principles which can limit the state acting are the rules of self-profit and sagacity. International community (norms, institutions and international law) reflect the power politics of the most powerful states.

International Relations Traditions

B. RATIONALISTGrotius. Internationalist tradition. Supports the existence of

the international community. The constitutive elements of the international community are not individuals, but sovereign states. Their activity is not limited to the power and wars – they create institutions, norms, rules, diplomacy which transform the hostile relations between states and create the international community. The international politics is the sphere where conflict is mixed with cooperation, because there in international relations there is neither absolute conflict of all against all, nor the interest harmony among actors of the international relations.

International Relations Traditions

C. REVOLUTIONARYKant, universalistic. The substance of the international

relations are social relations which connects the individuals, civilians and state. The main actors of the IR are not states, but individuals and human communities. Humankind shares the same interests which enables them to create from IR the game with not zero sum game. The state acts is limited by the moral imperatives. There is a presupposition of international anarchy but it is possible to overcome this anarchy. The rules in the international systems are deduced from the higher morality of the world civilian society.

International Relations Traditions and the

conceptualisations of security REALISTIC TRADITION – basis for the state-centric

concept of security, where security means the security of my state and all other states mean threat.

REVOLUTIONARY TRADITION – basis for the individual and global security – security of human being and security of world community.

RATIONALISTIC TRADITION – position in-between realistic and revolutionary tradition – security is the state responsibility and comes from the relations among state (relational security). States create framework of relations as the source of conflicts or source for the security cooperation and regimes.

Periodization of the development of Security Studies

I. Inter-war period II. 1950s III. 1955-1965 IV. 1965-1980 V. 1980-1989/1990 VI. After 1990

I. Inter-war period The American peace movement active in the

end of the 19th century had impact on the international law and international organizations. War as the mean used by rational man if having no other choice.

After the WWI. Two streams in the Anglo-Saxon world: idealistic and realistic.

I. Inter-war period Realists prefer state security and the best way

how to secure it is the American isolationism and the strengthening of the American military power.

Idealists believe that the spread of democracy, choice for national self-determination, demilitarization and system of collective security will secure the US security as well as security of other states. The instruments for the security provision shall be the international organizations and international law.

I. Inter-war period

Impact of the rise of Nazism in Germany State security as the main research topic, security of

the state before the military and political threats American policy is the power policy and the power

policy is the synonym for the world policy. Discussion in the beginning of the WWII : Where is the American foreign policy heading to?

1st research Security studies centers (Council on Foreign Relations 1921, The Brookings Institution 1927)

1950s WWII changed not only the world politics but

the IR as discipline as well. 1948 Hans Morgenthau published in the USA

Politics among nations. The struggle for Power and Peace. This book became the fundamental security text book.

The realists dominate the Security studies. The security as the main aim of every state. The state security shall be ensured by all means.

1st Departments of the Security studies in US

1955-1965 – Golden Age of the Security Studies

The development of security studies because of the growing tensions between USSR and US

Nuclear weapon – relativisation of the territorial dimension of IR

The security studies determined by the nuclearization of the US foreign policy

1955-1965 – Golden Age of the Security Studies

The main topics – use of power, threat, control of military power

Can we use the nuclear weapon as the diplomatic mean (deterrence theory)

Start of the research of security in Europe due to the nuclear weapon

1965-1980 – decline of the Security Studies

4 Reasons according to Stephen Walt: 1.The results of the Caribbean crisis. Mutually

assured destruction – MAD. 2.The failures of US army in Vietnam war and

the resistance towards war in the American society

3.Détente and the demilitarization agreements between US and USSR degraded the study of war

4.Decline of the American economy – the economic security aims become relevant

1965-1980 – decline of the Security Studies

Armament control as a topic Decline of Security Studies means the bloom of the

Peace studies in northern Europe Journal of Peace Studies in Oslo 1964 Europeans deviate from the traditional American

security concepts Peace studies research the human security and the

ethnical questions in security, not Euro-Atlantic space, relations between non-state actors and security – these topics became relevant for Security Studies only in 1990s.

1980-1989/1990Renaissance of the security studies

Soviet invasion in Afghanistan Ronald Reagan in function Launch of Strategic Defence Initiative Cooling of American-Soviet relations New journal International Security Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) –

Yearbook of world armaments and disarmaments Oslo – PRIO – International Peace Research Institute Oslo 2nd half of 80s – Barry Buzan – criticism of security

conceptualisation Criticism of ethnocentrism of security studies (most of researchers

Americans )– change Amitav Acharya, Mohammed Ayoob

After 1990

Seemed the security studies will loose the research topic

However, disintegration of Yugoslavia, war in Bosnia, Croatia….

The core is the discussion about the security concept

Concept of security in 1990s I. Group against the change of agenda and

conceptualisation of security (neorealist, state remains the main referent objects, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt), we can not research security of all and everything…

II. Group supporting partial or moderate reform (Richard Schultz, Peter Katzenstein, Roy Greenwood, in the beginning of 1990s Copenhagen school, national security remains the main issue, widening of the concept – economical, environmental, societal security

II. Group supporting radical reform of the security studies (Richard Ullman, Charles Kegley, Edward Kolodziej, not only national security but international and human security)