Security as a Contested Concept - Literature review Example

Name: Institution: Tutor: Date: Introduction For several decades now, the issue of security has dominated major debates globally thereby making the concept of security quite significant in international relations. Despite several attempts by the security studies scholars to conceptualize the term ‘security’ coherently and systematically, there has never been any single and generally-accepted definition to have been agreed upon. Security has therefore been a contested concept defying the pursuit of a generally-agreed definition. The concept of security has considerably evolved overtime with traditional and non-traditional concepts constituting the main facets. It is further argued that each security concept corresponds to particular threats, capabilities and values to address the apparent challenges. In view of this, it is therefore argued that the highlighted theoretical traditions offer distinct and specific views on the security concept and the means of achieving security. The evolution associated with security paradigm as well as the shifts in the security conception, all based on various theoretical assumptions alongside the political ones, are claimed to be not only closely associated with the notable historical revolution that was experienced in the international system, but also the fundamental intellectual progress in the interpretation. This paper therefore addresses the issue regarding relevance of the trаditiоnаl sесurity studiеs in the face of the non-traditional studies while also highlighting the dominant theories involved and the main contemporary debates associated with the recent shifts in security studies. According to Williams (2008), traditional security refers to the state-centric security construct based on realism1. As a realist construct, Collins(2013) argues highlights that it considers the state as its referent object and the only actor hence was primarily designed to promote (through military action) various demands that the state ascribed2. It thus depended upon building-up the national power as well as the military defense through various means including armament races, strategic boundaries and alliances to achieve this. Garcia (2006) further argues that traditional security depended on anarchistic power balance, military build-up mainly between Soviet Union and the U.S. (The superpowers), and absolute sovereignty3. On the other hand, non-traditional security (also NTS) is basically a security construct that is based more on idealism than realism. It focuses on addressing the challenges to the state as well as the human welfare and survival that primarily arise from the non-military sources (Collins, 2013) 4. These include transnational crime, information security, economic security, terrorism, illegal immigration, drug trafficking, climate change, epidemics, financial security and disaster relief, which are currently considered as core security issues especially by post-communist and developing regions. While the two approaches agree on the individual being the security policy referent, they are argued by Smith (2005) to have great disagreements on the threats the individual is to be protected against and the means of protection5. This has raised significant issues and consequently heated debates on the relevance of traditional security studies in the current nature and state of security, with many scholars viewing security through distinct lenses despite their increased intellectual coherence. As a consequence, the effectiveness and dominance of traditional security studies have generally been argued to have declined after the cold war hence becoming outdated in favour of the non-traditional security concept following the realization of new security threats and concerns. While Buzan & Lene (2009) argue that global security has evolved considerably over time from what it was known to be in the several past decades, the interwar era is argued to have had a significant influence on the security studies basing on its argument for the use of international laws as well as institutions in solving conflicts rather than using the military force6. A decade after the World War 2 however, academic interests in the security studies grew significantly despite the consideration of national security in the broader international relations framework (Croft & Terry, 2013)7. While it was never preoccupied with nuclear weapons and deterrence as would later be during the cold war, it was the most innovative and exciting time in the history of security studies. Its focus grew even narrower and rigid during cold war where the traditional concept of security studies peaked. However, as the tension during cold war receded, it became apparently clear that citizens were threatened by both hardships from activities within the state and external aggressors. Civil wars increased and diseases, human rights abuse, violence and hunger were all noted to have been masked by the policies of traditional security highlighting failure of the state to meet its primary objective. Consequently, the non-traditional concept of security, focusing on non-military threats to human survival such as pandemics and environmental degradation, was adopted (Collins,2013) 8. For instance, according to UNAIDS(2006), AIDS claims about three million lives annually with a third of this being from Sub-saharan Africa hence retarding the economic growth, destroying the human capital9. Currently, it is considered as more life threatening than any armed conflict in Sub-saharan Africa (Hough, 2004)10. The fundamental criticism of the traditional security approach was primarily on its intellectual hegemony (realism). Traditionalists have been argued to make unrealistic arguments especially in view of the fact that they are argued to overemphasize on the military. This concern with defense policy has been widely considered as wrong since military threats, as argued by Collins (2007), have never thrived only in the military realm guided by a security problem and offense-defense balance11. As Molloy (2006) highlights, realists insist on the presence of an objective and knowable world quite separate from individuals observing. This particular approach is therefore not only self-contradictory but also fundamentally misunderstanding the significance of theory particularly in the construction of what is seen and how it is perceived12. Morgan (2006) claims that if reality was objectively knowable, theories would not have been necessary in organizing or explaining phenomena presenting themselves to individuals13. Conversely, Morgan (2006) argues that if theories guide us in identifying what we require and the manner in which to organize the disparate phenomena, then reality will not be objectively knowable in the absence of theories14. Collins (2007) therefore states that the choice regarding theoretical lenses are important arguing that traditional security studies are insufficient as far as understanding of state behaviour is concerned15. Supporters of the critical security paradigm have as such referred to historical watersheds including cold war, 9/11 U.S terrorist attacks among others to advocate for a reconsideration and reassessment of the security studies. The advocates have thus emphasized on the increasing international interdependence, heavy defense spending, arms race consequences, and the constantly changing threats to human life as the basis for forming a new security definition. The very definition meant here is one more focused on environmental, political, economic and social issues rather than mostly on military power (Browning & McDonald, 2011)16. Fundamentally, the constructivist international relations theoreticians have also criticized the failure of neorealism to realize the social construction of the international systems. According to Collins (2007), neorealism supports an international society that does not have sociality and basis of intersubjective consensus prior to/constitutive of the individual actors and their personal ends17. Increasingly theorists have accepted that, contrary to the position of neorealism, the international relations structures/dynamics are mainly determined by the shared ideas as opposed to material forces, and that identities or interests of the purposive actors develop from the shared ideas contrary to being a natural gift (Collins, 2013) 18. The shift to a focus on the reflexively as well as historically constituted practices have thus provided interrogative and intuitive paradigm for the understanding of international relations. According to Sheehan (2005) and Collins(2013) therefore, constructivist theories emphasize that actors and objects relate and prevail within environments where social configurations are collectively constructed19,20. In view of this therefore, constructivists refuse the claims of neorealists arguing that states treat others as either friends or enemies based on identities and intents rather than merely on the basis of power distribution. Alexander (2010), for instance, argues that the military power of U.S has a very distinct significance for Canada as compared to Cuba, irrespective of their identical structural positions21. Liberals, on the other hand, have also completely replaced the traditional security concept with liberalism. Unlike realists however, liberals look at security with regards to inter alia, successful diplomacy, international law enforcement, and support of the global norms. According to William (2008), this approach is mainly based on the significance of institutions whereby its insights are also primarily derived from international law, multilateralism, and norms22. Indeed, the liberals believe in human security being a global/universal security agenda. Despite the research based on the traditional viewpoint narrowing down the significance of traditional concept, idealism can not be completely refuted as unnecessary and irrelevant. Traditional security studies are still applicable in specific situations within the contemporary world, for instance during the 9/11 attack on U.S, America was forced to pursue armed combat. Currently, the mostly vibrant area within the traditional security studies is basically related to democratic peace as democratic peace is primarily concerned with issues regarding threat assessment, deterrence/signaling, and using force. Despite some particular observers indicating weariness with the democratic peace research, especially that most of it currently emphasizes on coding as well as semantics, Smallman & Brown (2011) argue that there are still various untapped areas in the study23. Among the notable ones, as highlighted by Smallman & Brown (2011) is the fact that currently there exists an uncertainty on whether democratic peace is as a direct result of a single causal process or multiple ones, the method by which the stable peace relationships develop and the reasons behind the emergence, and finally the exact role played by information/transparency in the signaling resolve24. The very research agenda is also argued by Collins (2007) to be very active in the examination of links existing between the national cultures and use and management of force, offense-defense balance, economic sanction effectiveness, and nature of the military innovations25. Conclusion Security studies have no doubt been a sub discipline dominated by major debates. Apart from being studied, Security has been fought over in as much as human societies have existed. As highlighted in the paper, the definition and interpretation of security has actually been different among individuals, with traditional and non-traditional security concepts taking the centre stage and becoming the primary focus of attention. While the traditional security concept dominated much of the cold war period, with time and especially after cold war scholars found that the classical frameworks could not easily adapt to the new and emerging security landscape hence they focused on advanced approaches to the issue of security studies. Traditional security has thus come to be viewed as outdated and unfit by critics and especially within the post communism and developing regions. A major argument leveled against it was the narrow focus on security where in essence it is primarily about nations/states and perception of insecurity through the military prism hence being deemed as simpler and insufficient in the wake of new challenges and threats facing the existence of humanity. Reference Alexander, David. (2010). Critical Security Studies and the Deconstruction of Realist Hegemony. Browning, Christopher & McDonald, Matt. (2011)The Future of Critical Security Studies: Ethics and the Politics of Security. European Journal of International Relations. Buzan, Barry & Lene, Hansen. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Croft, Stuart & Terriff, Terry. (2013). Critical Reflections on Security and Change. Taylor & Francis. Collins, Alan. (2013).Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford University Press. Collins, Alan. (2007). Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford University Press. Garcia, Denise. (2006).Small Arms and Security: New Emerging International Norms. Routledge. Hough, Peter. (2004). Understanding Global Security. London: Routledge. Molloy, Sean. (2006).The Hidden History of Realism: A Genealogy of Power Politics. New York: Palgrave. Morgan, Patrick. (2006). International Security: Problems and Solutions. CQ Press. Smallman, Shawn & Brown, Kimberly. (2011).Introduction to International and Global Studies. University of North Carolina Press. Smith, Steve. (2005).The Contested Concept of Security. In Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies andWorld Politics. Colorado: Lynne Renner Sheehan, Michael. (2005). International Security. An Analytical Survey. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner. UNAIDS. (2006) “Overview of the global AIDS epidemic”. Retrieved from http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH02_en.pdf, accessed on 14.11.06 Williams, Paul. (2008). Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Read More