Traditional Theories of Security Studies

Definitionen:

1. A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war. (Walter Lippmann 1943: 51)

2. Security, in any objective sense, measures the absence of threat to acquired values and in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked. (Arnold Wolfers 1962: 150)

3. Security itself is a relative freedom from war, coupled with a relative high expectation that defeat will not be a consequence of any war that should occur. (Ian Bellany 1981: 102)

4. National security may be defined as the ability to withstand aggression from abroad. (Giacomo Lucuani 1989: 151)

5. Security – insecurity is defined in relations to vulnerabilities – both internal and external – that threaten or have the potential to bring down or weaken state structures, both territorial, and institutional, and governing regimes. (Mohammed Ayoob 1995: 9)

6. In the case of security, the discussion is about the pursuit of freedom from threat. When this discussion is in the context of the international system, security is about the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity. (Barry Buzan 1991: 18)

➢Negative: Absence of threat

➢Positive: Presence of something valued

➢Objective as well as subjective

➢Means of claiming something as important

➢Provided on an equal basis vs. a commodity

➢Type of politics & practice where normal rules do not apply

Threats:

➢Require an enemy

➢Anticipation of harm inflicted by another

➢Relate to actions, intentions and capabilities of an actor

Vulnerabilities:

➢Do not require an enemy

➢Require the anticipation of a future event that one is not prepared for

Risks:

➢Probability X consequence

• Vietnam War

• Post-colonial wars of national liberation

• Regional conflicts

• OPEC oil embargo

Challenged by other disciplines: Peace studies, international political economy etc.

Major rethink of security:

• Questioning of the importance of military power

• Reexamination of how security was analyzed

• Reflection of what should be included in the analysis of security

➢Process of broadening and deepening on the empirical and theoretical level.

• Dependency

• Role of individuals

• Technology

• Social Media

• WMDs

• Armaments race?

• Nato & Military spending

• Armed support

• World War 3?

States are the main actors in IR

Want to survive

Rational

The structure of the international system is anarchic

No trust; suspicion

Self help system

Power as a means of survival

Power=capabilities (military)

Relative gains

International politics depends on the distribution of capabilities

Kenneth Waltz

Security dilemma: “A structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (John H. Herz)

Deterrence

Mutually assured destruction (MAD)

Offensive Neorealism (John Mearsheimer):

• states strive for as much power / capabilities as possible.

• Aim for Hegemony.

Defensive Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz):

• states strive for as much power as is needed to defend themselves.

• Aim to balance other states

„Persistent and connected sets of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioural roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations.“ (Robert O. Keohane)

“closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of International Relations” (Levy 1989: 88).

Why do democracies not fight each other?

Why are they more inclined to fight with non-democracies?

Citizens have to consent to war and do not want to pay the cost of war (death, destruction etc.)

Elections: Reelections depend on winning the conflict – Risk avers politicians

Checks & balances: Prevent escalation; civilian control of military; transparency of decision making process; slowness

Existing conflict resolution mechanisms: solve conflict prior to outbreak of violence

Elections: Rally around the flag effect; divert attention away from internal problem; election of populists

Checks & balances: Distrust due to a lack of checks & transparency; opaque nature of the authoritarian political system; reduced control over military in situations of crisis

Shared norms and political ideas prevent war

Other side is seen as legitimate

Difficult to justify war

Difficult to gain public support

Absence of shared norms

Non-democracies are seen as illegitimate

Lack of trust

Find distinctions of self vs. other

Distinction made between „evil“ government and „innocent“ population.

Form security communities – prevents violence among democracies

Peace as more economically beneficial than war 

Economic Interdependence

Security communities reduce the risks & costs of war

Democracies are less likely to lose

Make preemptive war more likely