International Security Dersi 2. Ünite Özet

Introduction

International Relations (IR) can be cast as a discipline of theoretical disagreements (Burchill, 1996). Debates surrounding security studies have evolved through several interrelated turns. Some of the most influential reviews address how various IR approaches understand security and security problems.

Security is defined as an ‘ essentially contested concept ’. As Baldwin states, the conceptual analysis of security has been neglected in IR studies.

Security Studies during the Cold War era was a rather limited and narrow research field in IR, mainly focusing on state security and defining threat only in military terms. However, by the end of the Cold War period, new schools of thought have emerged in the field of Security Studies in parallel with the emergence of new kinds of threats against human well-being and security. Critical Security Studies (CSS) is an umbrella term for a range of approaches which seek to challenge the orthodoxy of ‘traditional’ security studies.

Traditional Approaches to Security

During the Cold War, military threats to national security dominated all others in the eyes of most security specialists. This traditional understanding is the old military and state-centered view, which places the nation state at the center of security debate.

Realism and Security

Realism defines international relations in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward each other is called power politics (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2014). There are two main approaches of realism: classical realism that considers power politics in terms of egoism and neorealism, or structural realism, that explains power politics in terms of anarchy

For all realists, the struggle for power is the main motivation in political life. As Morgenthau notes, the ‘will to power’ is unlimited, and states try to maximize their power in international politics where anarchy is a ‘permissive force’.

Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of political realism” as follows:

1. Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
2. The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power .
3. The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent .
4. Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
5. Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
6. The political sphere is autonomous

For realists, war is a permanent feature of international relations. The possibility of war stems from the inescapable dynamics of power politics : as states pursue their national interest they will inevitably come into conflict with one another, and this conflict will sometimes (but not always) be played out in military terms.

Structural realism emphasizes four core elements of international politics:

1. States are seen as rational actors and by far the most important actors in the international system.
2. The international system is anarchic ; there is no international authority that can prevent the use of force between states.
3. Each state cannot take its security for granted and thus, is responsible for ensuring its own survival, most notably through the nurturing of material capabilities.
4. The balance of power .

British scholar Susan Strange (1996) offers Structural Power Thoeory and defines it as “the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to people or relate to corporate enterprises”. She distinguishes between four primary power structures:

1. The knowledge structure , which influences actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions;
2. The financial structure , which controls access to credit or investment;
3. The security structure , which shapes defence and strategic issues;
4. The production structure , which affects economic development and prosperity.

Focus on China and The USA

China may increasingly bristle at international rules and norms that it feels serves the interests of the United States. For its part, the United States may fear that growing Chinese economic and military power will be used to challenge U.S. power. In 2010, the U.S. military’s strategic review questioned China’s “long-term intentions,” raising new questions about future power transition. However, many argue that China has a symbiotic relationship with the United States. If the United States declines, it is likely that China also may be in jeopardy.

The balance of threat theory was suggested by Stephen M. Walt first in an article titled “ Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power ” in 1985. The balance of threat theory modified the balance of power theory in the neorealist school of international relations. According to the balance of threat theory, states’ alliance behavior is determined by the threat they perceive from other states.

Liberalism and Security

Liberal ideas and theories have been influencing the discipline of IR following World War I. Liberalism was characterized as idealism which was based on Kant’s account of universal and perpetual peace. From the 1970s onwards, liberalism has taken the form of neoliberalism . The increasing influence of globalization after the end of the Cold War and a new wave of democratization in the 1990s each gave liberal theory an additional boost.

Security in Liberalism

Liberalism asserts that collective security will be ensured by the establishment of international law and norms The collective security system , which will become operative with this institutionalization, will gain a new dimension as a result of the democratization of states through common norms and rules.

For liberalism, the security agenda in modern global politics has changed in a number of ways. These include, on the one hand, the expansion of ‘ zones of peace ’ in which the tensions and incipient conflicts implied by the security dilemma appear to be absent. Thus ‘ security regimes ’ or ‘ security communities ’ have developed to manage disputes and help to avoid war, a trend often associated with growing economic interdependence (linked to globalization) and the advance of democratization. On the other hand, September 11 and the wider threat of terrorism has highlighted the emergence of new security challenges that are particularly problematic because they arise from non-state actors and exploit the greater interconnectedness of the modern world.

Liberalism has three different forms:

1. Republican Liberalism
2. Interdependence Liberalism
3. Liberal Institutionalism

Changing the the Nature of Power

“In the modern world, states, therefore, compete through trade rather than through the use of force. The realist understanding of hard power which encompasses both military and economic power is declined.

Critical Security Studies

Critical Security Studies is an academic discipline within security studies which rejects mainstream approaches such as realism and neorealism. Critical Security Studies contributes to security studies by broadening and deepening the concept of security. This provides to have better and fuller agendas that cover all those issues that engender security. Critical security studies take the Frankfurt School critical theory as a guide in order to define the world. Critical theory rejects positivism by claiming that knowledge does not arise from the objective reality but it reflects some interests and purposes.

From the point of critical theorists, it is not possible to claim the existence of value-free knowledge. If all knowledge is for someone and for some purpose, theories are the ones that are for those presently in power with the purpose of maintaining their dominance.

From Traditional Security Studies to Critical Security Studies

Traditional security studies refer to work associated with the broader approach to international relations known as political realism, both in its classical and structural (or neorealist) variants. Therefore, security is viewed narrowly in terms of the survival of the state and issues such as nuclear proliferation, deterrence, and power. In addition to the state-centric and military –focused security agenda, traditional security also embraced the positivist methodology of realism. Positivism rejects human subjectivity and argues that only objective knowledge can lead to science. Critical Security Studies share the belief that in order to respond to complex threats of the postCold War period, the agenda of security should be expanded.

The Welsh School (The Aberystwyth School) in Critical Security Studies

The Welsh School is a name that it is attributed to the security studies school at the Aberystwyth University. The Welsh School has been one of the leading critical security schools and it draws all the attention with the contributions of the scholars such as Ken Booth, Richard Wyn Jones, Andrew Linklater, and Pınar Bilgin. The school criticizes the approach of Traditional Security Studies that locates its analysis on a state as a central concern of the study and declares that traditional security approaches are not sufficient for the security needs of today The Welsh School originally identified emancipation as a key concept for security and placed it at the centre of their work.

Since the publication of Booth’s article ‘ Security and Emancipation ’ (1991) this approach has confirmed its originality by combining three sets of ideas;

1. It has shifted the focus towards individuals as the ultimate referent object of security.
2. Security understanding and practices are political.
3. The normative side of this view is that the condition of insecurity means oppressive relations and structures (economic, social and political) which determines the lives of individuals and groups.

Criticisms against the Welsh School are mostly directed to the concept of emancipation.

1. First, it is not easy to define the emancipation concept universally.
2. The second group of criticisms is about equating emancipation with security.

The Copenhagen School in Critical Security Studies

The Copenhagen School of security studies emerged at the Conflict and Peace Research Institute (COPRI) of Copenhagen. Its most prominent scholars are Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde . They all claim that traditional methods are inadequate to describe the current security needs. Their main argument is the necessity of ‘broadening and widening’ the security agenda.

Buzan examines the dynamics of security in five sectors:

1. military,
2. political,
3. economic,
4. environmental
5. societal.

The Paris School of Critical Security Studies

The Paris School has an interdisciplinary perspective that brings scholars together from different disciplines such as political sociology, law, international relations, and criminology to analyze security. The academic works of the Paris School are related to post-structural approaches to security. Key components of this school are internal - external security merges, security agencies, and praxis over discourse .

International Security from a Critical Perspective

Since the late 1980s, major IR theories have been challenged by critical perpectives. Critical perspectives vary remarkably. The most prominent critical theories in IR are as follows:

• Marxism and Neo-Marxism
• Critical Theory
• Poststructuralism/Postmodernism
• Social constructivism

Marksizm and Neo-Marksizm

“Marxism challenged realism and liberalism by focusing primarily on economic analysis and is mainly related with exposing capitalism as a system of class oppression that operates on national and international levels. This applies to classical Marxism and to most forms of Neo-Marxism.

The world systems theory is an approach to world history and social change. The world-system consists of interrelationships between the ‘ core ’, the ‘ periphery ’ and the ‘ semi-periphery ’. The main characteristics of this theory are:

1. The world systems theory is established on a three-level hierarchy consisting of a core, periphery, and semi-periphery areas.
2. The core countries, such as the developed North, dominate and exploit the peripheral countries for labor and raw materials.
3. The peripheral countries such as the less developed South are dependent on core countries for capital.
4. The semi-peripheral countries share characteristics of both core and peripheral countries. They are economically subordinate to the core but in turn take advantage of the periphery, thereby constituting a buffer between the core and the periphery.
5. This theory emphasizes the social structure of global inequality.

Critical Theory

‘Critical theory’ or ‘Frankfurt School critical theory’ is distinguished from other Marxism-inspired critical theories. The ideas of Antonio Gramsci mostly influenced the critical theory. Gramsci (1970) argues that the capitalist class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and political power, but by what he terms the hegemony of bourgeois ideas and theories.

Postmodernism and Security

Recent years have seen the emergence of post-modernist approaches to international relations which has produced a somewhat distinctive perspective towards international security. Postmodernists share the view that ideas matter, but they also see discourse –how people talk about international politics and security-as an important driving force that shapes the way in which states behave. Poststructuralism emerged alongside postmodernism and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Social Constructivism and Security

Social constructivism focuses on the nature of norms, identity, and social interactions. The constructivist approach is based on the belief that there is no objective social or political reality independent of our understanding of it. Constructivists hold that these state identities are complex and changing, and arise from interactions with other states—often through a process of socialization