IR Theories perception about security studies

1. Security Studies and
International Relations
Security for whom?

2.  Security
 Security studies
 Key assumptions of security
 Value of security
 Three paradigms of security
 Periodization of the development of Security
Studies

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. International Relations
Traditions
 B. RATIONALIST
Grotius. 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.

9. International Relations
Traditions
 C. REVOLUTIONARY
Kant, 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 1980-1989/1990
Renaissance 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

21. 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

22. 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)