Introduction to Security

Studies and the End of the

Cold War: (Re)defining

Security?

Dr Marcus Kim

In this lecture…

• Recap of what we covered last term

• The idea of security during the Cold War: Reasons why there was not a real attempt to conceptualise security

• What changed?

• What is security?

• Whose security are we talking about?

• Introduction to this term’s programme

Recap from last term

• Part 1

Hobbes and Locke’ theories of the state

Theories of nation and nationalism

Emergence and development of the modern state

Emergence of modern nation through revolutions

The Two World Wars

The Cold War: Its origins and the War itself

Recap

• Part 2

Realism and Neorealism

Liberalism and Neoliberalism

Security as a key theme of history

• Security is an important theme in the emergence of the nation-state and IR theories

Hobbes and Locke justified the need for state for security of people

The French and American Revolutions occurred because of the states’ inability to provide security to their people

The prevention of war was the key issue that gave birth to IR as a discipline

Why was there no serious attempt to conceptualise security during the Cold War?• Reason 1: the dominance of the

Realist assumption of international politics as a recurring struggle for power

The two World Wars

The Cold War

Why was there no serious attempt to conceptualise security during the Cold War?• Reason 2: Realism’s methodology

Its logical formula helped explain or predict the Soviet Union’s behaviour appealed to both academics and policy-makers during the Cold War

The formula was easy to apply to policy-making

Why was there no serious attempt to conceptualise security during the Cold War?• Reason 3: the nature of the various

academic challenges to the Realist dominance

Peace Movement: focused on the idea of peace with focus on arms control, disarmament and international cooperation, rather than security

Liberal interdependance: focused on political economy rather then security

Why was there no serious attempt to conceptualise security during the Cold War?• Reason 4: the deeply interconnected nature of

the Western political attitude with focus on national military security and the academic culture of within IR

The Cold War created the antagonistic condition

This sustained the Realist dominance in IR

Change to this was not in the interest of academics or politicians

Conceptualisation of Security: A Break Through

• Barry Buzan’s People, State and Fear (1983, 1st Edition; 1992, 2nd Edition)

Security is not just about states but is related to ALL human collectivities

Five sectors: Military, Political, Economic, Societal and Environmental

Conceptualisation of Security: A Break Through• Barry Buzan’s framework for analysis on security

Military: the interplay between military capability and the states’ perception of each other’s intentions

Political: the organisational stability of the states, system of government and the political ideologies that give them legitimacy

Economic: access to the resources, finance and markets necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power

Societal: the sustainability, within acceptable conditions for evolution, of traditional patterns of language, culture and religious and national identity and custom

Environmental: the maintenance of the local and planetary biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend

What enabled this new way of thinking about security?1. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought the idea

of state into a referent object of analytical concern.

2. The Soviet Union collapsed because of the failure of its economic model: Military security less important?

3. The end of the Cold War lifted the tension between the two superpowers and the states no longer focused on military security: defence budgets started to fall.

What is Security?

• Point 1: Security is ‘essentially a contested concept’ (W. B. Gallie, 1953)

There is not one definition of security but several competing definitions, i.e. security is a normative concept in the sense that the contestation of different concepts of security in part derives from ideological and valuational preferences. E.g. one might think that the world should be filled with liberal democratic type states because this type of state is more likely to provide its citizens with welfare support than a dictatorial type state.

Still on Point 1: Security is ‘essentially a contested concept’

the benefit of understanding security as a contested concept lies in whatever it is that makes the concept ambiguous

ambiguity stimulates theoretical discussion

it provides opportunity to examine the boundaries of the different definitions of security, the contradictions that occur within them and the applicability of their definitions when new developments arise in world politics

What is Security?

• Philosophical Perspective 1: security means accumulation of power

Security is a commodity (armies, money, property etc.)

The more material power one has the more security one gains.

What is Security?

• Philosophical Perspective 2: security is to do with a relationship between different actors rather than a commodity

security can be understood as being free from threat

security can be perceived as a force that enables or makes things happen

Still on Philosophical Perspective 2

• Understood in this relational sense, security involves the presence of a degree of confidence in the relationship among actors that comes through sharing certain commitments.

• This, in turn, provides a degree of reassurance and predictability.

e.g. in international state relations, security means absence of threat, e.g. war, and working interdependently to construct a condition of peace and trust

Whose security are we talking about?• What are we wanting to secure? Should we make the state

as the key object of study? The world? The state? Society? Or humans?

• If we decided to make humans as the key object of concern for security, which humans should we try to make feel secure? Does one group of humans always have the right to act to uphold the rights of another group of humans?

• E.g. Does the west have the right to intervene in North Korea to advocate human rights for ordinary North Koreans?

How should we aspire to achieve security?

• Should we continue to treat the state as the central apparatus of security? Or should we aspire to the idea of collective security?

• If the latter was the option, in what form should collective security manifest? Should we consider a kind of state alliance system or formal institutional setting?

Topic 1: Theories of Security

1: Introduction to Security Studies and the End of the Cold War: (Re)defining Security?

2: Challenging the Meaning of Security: New Dimensions of Security – Human and Collective Security

3: Theoretical underpinnings of Security Studies I: The Traditional Approach

4: Theoretical underpinnings of Security Studies II: An Alternative Approach

Topic 2: The Environment and Security

5: Introduction to Environmental Security

6: Environmental Security and Economic Development

Topic 3: Collective Security

7: International Security and UN in post-Cold War: An Overview

8: Conflict Resolution and Peace: Theory and Practice

9: The Politics of International Intervention 1 – Rwanda

10: The Politics of International Intervention 2 –Bosnia/Kosovo

Topic 4: The European Union

11: Introduction to the European Union

12: The Idea of European Union: States into Supranational State?

Topic 5: Globalisation and Security

13: Theory of Globalisation: The Great Debate

14: Sources and Impact of Globalisation – Cause for security or insecurity?

15: Human Security

Conclusion

• We covered the reasons why security was not considered as a separate concept during the Cold War.

• The reasons for the rethinking on security in from the 1980s.

• Security is a contested concept. Think carefully why this is the case, what this means to studying security.

• Two key philosophical premises of security: Security as a commodity; and security as emancipation.