Can the Security Dilemma in International Politics be Overcome - Essay Example

2. Can the security dilemma in international politics be overcome? With the evolution of the various geographical territories into official countries, primarily in the 20th century, international politics assumed an all new meaning. Although, international relations between these countries were maximally carried out in a diplomatic manner, there are numerous occasions when conflicts arose between these countries. That is, when countries to protect their territorial integrity and/or to dominate other countries indulge in aggressive actions, the security aspects will come into the picture. “Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats, especially those which, left unchecked, threaten the survival of a particular object in the near future.” (Williams 2012, p.6). When the peaceful atmosphere prevailing between the countries gets aggravated, the countries themselves will try to solve the conflict. However, in other cases, the countries will approach International Organizations (IOs) to help them in finding a solution, and in certain ‘extreme’ cases, the IOs themselves will intervene to solve the conflict. Although, intervention or even forceful intervention of IOs to safeguard security in a tension filled environment could be a welcome step, when viewed from another perspective, it could be viewed as the infringement of country’s sovereignty. Thus, when IOs try to impose their authority over sovereign nations in the matters of security, it could lead to security dilemmas in international politics. At the same time, these dilemmas can be managed or overcome, when the countries themselves welcome the role of IOs in solving conflicts, as it provides them with certain advantages Although, international cooperation between countries or territories have been happening from earlier centuries leading to the formation of International groupings or International Organizations (IOs), League of Nation is considered to be one of the first IOs. After the First World War, various countries and other humanitarian groups wanted a strong overseeing IO, which can pre-empt large scale global wars and ensure security, thereby leading to the establishment of League of Nations in 1919. However, as the League of Nations failed to prevent the occurrence of the Second World War, it disintegrated. Only United Nations, which came into existence after the Second World War in 1945, is continuing to function as a strong IO, and has even ‘spawned’ many other IOs, which are not only focusing on security aspects, but also social, economic, health and other aspects. Braveboy-Wagner (2009, p.5) provides the list of the purposes for which IO’s have been set up and that includes “facilitating the negotiation and implementation of agreements” between the conflicting countries, resolving the disputes before the onset of the armed conflict, peacefully managing the military conflicts, carrying out economic and social based operational activities, “shaping international discourse”, etc. “The growing need to manage international cooperation has led to a steady rise in the number and prominence of international organizations (IOs) and in the use of formal international agreements more generally.” (Hafner-Burton, von Stein and Gartzke 2008, p.175). The other important perspective regarding the formation and role of IOs, which can help in overcoming the security dilemma is that, IOs are organizations that are established by the countries themselves. “International organizations are actors in world politics, constituted by international law as independent entities, separate from the states that make them up as their founders and their members.” (Hurd 2010, p. 17). This basic role of countries in the establishment of IOs’ is crucial, as the countries will give maximum recognition as well as validity to these IOs, as they only established it. In addition, they will also facilitate the IOs to play strong role throughout the world, including when the countries’ personal interests are at stake as well. (Neocleous 2008). Importantly, when the countries become members of those IOs by signing as well as through ratification, they are duty bound to accept all the rules and policies of the IOs, including the role of IOs in safeguarding security in International politics. This means they have to act against other sovereign countries or other territories only through IOs like United Nations, and thus avoiding any unilateral aggressive actions. In addition, they are also duty bound to allow IOs into their geographical territories, without any restrictions. “The legal terms in each treaty are the authoritative source of the obligations that states owe to each other and will be finely parsed long into the future.” (Hurd 2010, p.3). The countries by signing and ratifying the conventions of the IOs provide the IOs with autonomy and key responsibilities in matters of security, thereby placing the IOs at the centre of international politics. Thus, the dilemmas regarding security in relation to IOs can be overcome, with the countries supporting the IOs, as number of them will be the founding members of IOs, and importantly all of them would have joined as well as ratified those IOs and their rules. The security dilemmas in international politics can also be overcome, when the countries act through the IOs to gain legitimacy to their actions. That is, as mentioned above, although the countries due to their signing and ratification of IOs are duty bound to act through IOs, some countries have taken unilateral route, leading to dilemmas. After the World Wars, United States of America and Soviet Union started to emerge as superpowers as part of their Cold War, with USA becoming the sole superpower after the disintegration of Soviet Union, and carrying out unilateral actions. New thinking about security emerged, especially in the Post-Cold War Period, and that bordered on how countries wanted to take actions that primarily protected their personal interests. (Collins 2010). Thus, rules and conventions of IOs may not be the “all-controlling authority” for the countries, and so the countries focusing on their self-interests could take unilateral actions endangering security. However, when viewed from another perspective, this security related dilemma can be overcome, if the countries view IOs as an avenue to legitimize their actions. That is, when countries follow all the positive international conventions and propriety, and importantly act through the IOs by forming consensus and getting the support of the international community, avoiding unilateral steps, their action will get a positive identity. (Fierke 2007). As the conventions of IOs are framed in such manner, that it will only support and authorize genuine actions, the actions of countries following it will be termed genuine. On the same lines, the whole or majority of the international community will support the actions of countries, only when it is on the legitimate side, without endangering the innocent citizens and deteriorating the security. Thus, acting through IOs, provides the countries with sizable advantages and also suppresses any dilemmas. Abbott and Snidal (1998) supports this perspective by stating countries consciously use IOs both to reduce transaction costs in the narrow sense and, more broadly, to create to legitimacy for the actions, thereby enhancing their capacities and power even more. When the countries acts through this mode, there could be only minimal opposition to its actions and on the other hand, more countries could join in its mission and support it in maintaining security. In contrast to this perspective, if the country acts unilaterally without IOs, then their actions will be criticized severely, and they could be viewed as a ‘law breaking nation’, leading to more security dilemmas. This can be understood from the contrasting responses from the international community to the USA’s security related actions in Iraq in 1990’s, and then again in early 2000s. That is, in 1990s, USA gained UN sanction for its attack on Iraq, and thus was supported by majority of the countries, while in 2003, it did not get UN sanction, and so was criticized by sizable countries of the international community. The war against Iraq was proved much different and met with opposition from Germany and France as well as many non-Western based countries who conceived of the war as based on bad intentions. (Buzan and Hansen 2009, p.238). If USA was able to get the UN sanction in 2003 as well, it would have got the much need legitimacy and importantly could have escaped from strong vilification. “Had the Security Council been able to agree that force was warranted, it would have provided unique (and incontestable) legitimacy for U.S. military action” (Tharoor 2003). This clearly validates the point that if countries act through IOs, legitimacy can be bestowed to their actions, thus minimizing the security dilemmas. The other key perspective, which shows that IOs are the apt option to overcome security dilemmas in international politics is that, they have strong neutrality. Abbott and Snidal (1998, p.9) IOs have “authority to act with a degree of autonomy, and often with neutrality, in defined spheres”. From the above analysis, it is clear that although there are high chances of security dilemmas in international politics during conflicts between countries, they can be overcome if the IOs are given prominence. IO’s have to be given prominence mainly by the countries themselves. As discussed above, as the countries can garner many advantages when they act through IOs, it would be feasible for them to give importance to IOs. When they do that, security issues can be managed aptly, by minimizing sizable security related dilemmas that may rise in international politics. References Abbott, KW and Snidal, D., 1998. Why States Act through Formal International Organizations, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 3-32 Braveboy-Wagner, JA., 2009. Institutions of the Global South, Routledge, New York. Buzan, B and Hansen, L., 2009. The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Collins, A., 2010. Contemporary Security Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fierke, KM., 2007. Critical Approaches to International Security, Polity, Cambridge. Hafner-Burton, EM., von Stein, J and Gartzke, E., 2008. International Organizations Count, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.175-188 Hurd, I., 2010. International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York. Neocleous, M., 2008. Critique of Security, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Tharoor, S., 2003. Why America Still Needs the United Nations, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 5, 67-80. Williams, PD., 2012. Security Studies: An Introduction, Routledge, London. Read More