Security in the Context of International Relations Theories - Research Paper Example

Security in the Context of International Relations Theories Introduction The notion of international security in the current globalised era has been applied with the aim of justifying the suspension of civil liberties, fuelling wars and/or massively reallocating scarce resources throughout the past five decades. In view of the plethora of the concept of international security that have defined aftermath of Cold War, an utmost concern regarding the security of the nations has been emerged regarding the notion and concept of security. This is owing to the importance of appropriately justifying the notion of international security, which has long been used as a mechanism of suspending wars and civil liberties or massively reallocating vital resources. Despite the concepts illustrated by the scholars in recent days, it can be stated that international security has provided an inadequate understanding of international security due to the lack of conceptual analysis (Bromley, 2014, p.167 & 249; Baldwin, 1997; p.5-6). International security has long been considered as a major concern due to the long-standing issue of violence as well as unrests among the nations. In relation to the current phenomenon, the notion of international security is highly influenced by the changing prevalence in the global political, environmental and social, and military and technological domains. The perception of security in the current global arena defines about the measures and initiates taken by international councils and agencies along with nations and organisations to justify and graft the expansion of civil liberties by minimising war and various types of social unrests (Brown & et. al., 2014; p.5-7). In this essay, the discussion centrally focuses on critically addressing the key roles and functions performed by the security in the international system and determining its changing characteristics over the times. In order to critically address the key aim of the essay, the discussion provides a clear understanding about the changing patterns of conflicts and cooperation along with order, and disorder in the international system and contends perceptions about the potential patterns and their sources. In this regard, the discussion includes a critical assessment of the issues associated with political changes, economic development, inequalities along with international cooperation governance and security development process of the state system and the international economy. In addition, the essay includes a debate relating to the political changes and international relationship of the nations behind their continuous growth, changes and transformation throughout the decades. In this context, the essay incorporates two major theoretical approaches in respond to international relations and opposing notions and ideas about the key characteristics underpinning the changing international system. International System and the Processes within It According to the realists from different development stages of international relations, the concept of international system characterises as an anarchic structure, where minimum or less authority exists on a sovereign state. Therefore, each state has their own authority to look out their own interests irrespective of all circumstances. The international system, from the perspective of the realists is structured by the system polarity, which is generally characterised as the blocks of a particular state. In relation to the conception made by the realists, basically three major types of polarity can be identified including multi-polarity, bipolarity and hegemony that exert key power towards the development of the international system (Baldwin, 1997; Halliday, 1994). From a theoretical perspective, a multi-polarity system involves a simple set of regulatory policies, wherein numbers of interactions have taken place among each parties associated with the system. In this regard, the system often includes less opportunity to inhabit strong relationship. On the other hand, bipolar system is often considered as a difficult system that has major complexities to regulate formally, as neither the international organisations nor the uncommitted states are capable of directing the behaviour. In this type of system, an informal regulation may play a major role for regulating system in a more effective manner (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2014, p.71-73). Arguably, bipolar system is often regarded as more stable structure for the states to successfully obtain long-term growth or development in building relationship. This can be stated due to the fact that the system includes a clear illustration regarding the differences of power upheld by the two poles as compared to that upheld by the other actors in the state (Baldwin, 1997; p.8-9). The key process that can be observed in the international system is to distinguish its advantage for the state in the form of making appropriate comparison and contrast of the systems. Due to adequate comprehensiveness in its structure, international system offers a major support to the scholars and policymakers to effectively organise seemingly disjoined parts into a comprehensive system. In a similar context, the theories associated with international system are often regarded as a holistic approach, as it allows credible explanation of the regulatory norms in a more realistic and general form (Kaplan, 2005; p.3-5 Baldwin, 1997; p.11-17). Though the system cannot provide clear description about the events at the micro level, the international system follows the way of generalisation, which often provides appropriate fodder to make appropriate predictions. Critical Evaluation of Security in the context of International Relations Theories The notion of international relations theory tends to provide a clear conceptual framework to critically understand and perhaps gaining major understanding about the concept and process of international relations. From a major understanding obtained from the different scholars and researchers, the concept of international relations is often characterised into two major categories including positivists or rationalist theories and post-positivist or reflectivity theory. However, the international relations theories are constructed into four major categories including realism, liberalism, Marxism and constructivism (Corry, 2014, p.142-143). The concept and the process of security in the international relations can be distinguished into various forms as each of the theory provides a dissimilar view regarding the role of security in the international relations of the states. Security is often valued by the states, individuals and families, and other groups of actors. On the other hand, security might not be the only thing for the state or civilisations to emphasise strong values; and the pursuit of security generally reflects undermining the other values. Therefore, the importance of security for other values has become a major question for the analysts. In this context, three major procedures through which the value of security can be defined include prime value approach; marginal value approach and core value approach (Corry, 2014, p.148-151). Prime value approach In the context of measuring the efficiency of security in international relations, the prime value approach signifies that the security tends to outrank the indefensible value in both logical and empirical situations for all actors ranging from individuals, and groups to state or nation. In a logical context, the prime value approach is flawed due to its incapability of providing adequate justifications and limiting appropriate allocation of resources to strengthen security. On the other hand, from an empirical perspective, the prime value approach is often argued to be flawed, as it fails making comport with the way that are highly acceptable by the people or the state (Brown., 2014, p.12-15; Baldwin, 1997, p.8-9). Core value approach In relation to the core value approach, the approach helps in allowing the other values of the states or nation through equally asserting security as one of the most significant values. Although the approach helps in reducing complexities derived from both the logical and empirical notions, the approach also include these dimensions to justify value of security in the state or nation. However, one of these dimensions derived from the empirical approach is confronted with the required justification of the values determined by both the primary and core value approaches (Baldwin, 1997; p.19-20). Marginal Value Approach The approach can only be regarded as a major technique that provides a clear description of the values of security of the states or nation in international relations. The approach has highly gained a major attention, as it contradicts of considering security as the marginal value as similar to the other values of the states or nations regarding their security in the international system. In relation to the marginal value approach, security is also one of different other policy objectives that are subjected to the regulatory policies of diminishing the anticipated returns from the scarce resources (Conway, 2014, p.214-218). With due regard to the aforesaid evaluation, the actual value of security in the international system is highly modest with a major influence on the concrete return from the valuable resources. Despite critical evaluation of the aforementioned approaches of valuing security, the definition also represents its value as a set of concerns that simply measure the weight of the security label and is suggested as an urgency regarding the concept or definition of security (Huysmans & Conway, 2014, p.262). Therefore, the urgency is often considered for identifying the actual value of security in the international system. In relation to its attempts regarding any specific economic issues raised in the national security program, the inherent superiority of the security agenda plays a major role for the states or nations to gain appropriate measure towards addressing the possible economic challenges. In this regard, an intensity of threat can be defined as the major aspects while considering security of the states as a set of decisions to mitigate uncertain concerns (Kaplan, 2005, p.2-8; Baldwin, 1997; p.19-20). Critical Assessment of the Two Major International Relations Theories Although histories and theorists suggested a number of relevant theories to evaluate the international system, the discussion incorporates two major theoretical models that clearly determine international relations and the role of security that play in the international system. Liberalism From a general point of view, term liberalism is often regarded as an ideology or perspective relating to a free political system with higher toleration for religious beliefs and ideas that play a supportive role for the government in order to regulate capitalism as well as construct welfare of the state or nation. According to the theorists, the primary aims of liberalism are to critically address the issues and establishing peace and cooperation in the international relations. The theory is accustomed with various methods that essentially play a major role for the theory to achieve its primary aims (Corry, 2014, p.97-101; Kaplan, 2005; p.44-76). The methods in the liberalism theory are also considered as a key alternative of both the concept of institutionalism and realism in the international relations. In relation to a domestic realm, the liberalism theories are often characterised as normative rather including positive theoretical aspects. The liberals in accordance with the viewpoint of the realists are initially structured by individuals or groups who are likely to operate both the transnational and domestic civil societies. They are often considered as the primary groups of actors within the international system. In order to dichotomize liberalism in more specific and clear term, liberals across different stages of development in the international system are highly focused on the approaches wherein adequate independence always encourages and consents individuals to exert various types of forces to the national or state governments (Brown, 2014, p.293, 299 & 304). Despite the autonomous decision making process of the realists, liberals are more likely to critically evaluate the nature of domestic condition while making any type of decisions to improve or pressurise the national or state government regarding any regulatory or administrative decisions. This is owing to the fact that the liberals are often linked with examining the existing situation by linking the nature of societal demand with state or national policies and impose major pressure on the government to meet their claims. In this process, establishing of political nature along with adequate strengths of the preferences as a set of civic functions can be regarded as a major area for the liberals to meet the interests and purposes of their actors (Stritzel, 2007; p.7-11; Moravcsik, 1992). In relation to the role of security, liberals are more likely to gain an adequate support due to their independence along with their interests of improving the needs and demands of the community members. In addition, adequate strong gridlock with the conception of international law in the context of protecting interests of the states also empowers their security labels in the state or nation. In relation to a major understanding of the Liberalists and Realists, it has been critically identified that a liberal conceptions about the International Law are highly focused on the interests and aim of the states including the individuals and groups of members rather than the authoritative power of the state (Corry, 2014, p. 339-352). It generally conceptualises intimidations regarding the international orders and/or any other obstacles to the international corporations in case of any conflicts of interests associated with the state. In this regard, the security plays a crucial role in the Liberalism due to its strong set of regulatory policies relating to independence and interests of the state. In the Liberalism, law is developed with the aim of protecting state from international threats and is accordingly look for ways to resolve international conflicts. For instance, truly distinguishing conflicts from different falsifications; establishing strong principles to distinguish factors; and identification and clear representation of the common interests of the state for harmonising political and regulatory system of the state are few of the major practices in Liberalism to combat possible threats from the international system (Kaplan, 2005; p. 44-76; Baldwin, 1997; p. 21-22). Constructivism Theory The emergence of constructivism was coined in the international relations by Nicholas Greenwood Onuf in the year 1989 as a meta-theory regarding how the social science generally operates and appears to be the primary reason of criticism in international relations (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2014, p. 59, 62-63; Wendt, 1999). According to the ranging of criticisms, the notion of constructivism has delivered a clear and substantive knowledge or nature about the behaviour that exists in the state system. In relation to the concepts and ideas revealed by different theorists, it has been identified that the definition of constructivism often enables to understand about the appropriate and relatable ideas to draw or to compel valuable alternative and accessible language to the other theories associated with international relations. The term constructivism originated from a very basic proposition by exploring the political actors that are likely to construct ideas and concepts of political relations by their own thoughts and beliefs. Constructivists, according to various theorists, read their own perceptions and knowledge as more fluidly than the Realists and Liberalists. However, it does not compel to believe that the constructivists have less or minimum roles towards the development of the state or nation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2014, p.62-63; Stritzel, 2007; p. 7-11). In relation to the growing attention of the theories associated with international relations, constructivists often recognised themselves as primarily structures that are apparently based or established by the willingness of the actors to define them politically. According to a critical observation of the theorists, it has been revealed that their political background was formed with the aim of strengthening the political identity of the state and to shape effective political behaviours that support it (Kaplan, 2005; Baldwin, 1997). Perhaps, the theorists have also been stated that the interests of constructivists in their ideological beliefs also have major focus on their role as a group of non-State actors more as compared to the other international relations theories. For instance, the scholars and theorists have also stated that the roles that are played by the constructivists are similar to the actors such as transnational corporations or Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in terms of altering the beliefs and perceptions of the state regarding the concerns associated with international trade or the use of land-mines in wars. Such types of corporations are likely to influence the States’ nature and behaviour by rhetoric and other categories of persuasions or lobbying. Constructivists from different political studies have also recognised to play the role as international institutions with having their own rights and governing system. Despite the fact observed in the institutional theories, wherein the institutions act like the passive contrivance of States, Constructivists perceive that the notion of international bureaucracy might have been focus to pursue their ideologies or interests (Corry, 2014, p. 153-155). In relation to the concept of security, ideology and beliefs of the Constructivists defines a dissimilar perception regarding the security of states. According to the observation of various authors, it has been critically identified that the political ideology in Constructivism argues the entire concept and defection of international system. In relation to their ideological beliefs, Constructivists has the perception that the material structure cannot be defined by anything. In relation to their beliefs, there have been various international orders with different changing purposes in the international system. They often believe that the changes in the international system are followed by a wide range of social norms (Brown, 2014, p. 88). According to the perception of the Constructivists, social norms involve changes based on both the actions performed collectively and individually. In addition, they have the belief that the social norms may involve changes by coercion. However, most possibly, the social norms will be changed through the regulatory policies of the international institutions, laws as well as different social movements (W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2010). Critical Assessment of the Roles Performed by Security in International Relations According to a critical assessment of the theories associated with international relations, an in-depth understanding can be gathered to define the key characteristics as well as contribution of the theories in developing international relations. The study regarding international relations is basically concerned with the key perception of different political ideologies to formulate international relations. In relation to the changes observed in security, state within its early stage of development was considered as a security arrangement with employing huge amount of vital resources in order to protect the political, social, economic and environmental condition of the society, state or nation (Brown, 2014, p.5-14; Cassels, 1996; p.6-8). In addition, implementing adequate measures to avert the risk of social unrests along with ensuring civil and emergency defences have also been recognised as the primary focus of the states and nations to strengthen their security measures. The security studies in the political environment of the states were primarily concentrated by the Realists during the emerging phenomenon of international relations. Political parties and leaders have been identified to focus towards maintaining a strong growth of development in security studies. In this regard, a major set of theory relating to the security of the states and nations have been emerged by the political changes among the nations. In this discussion, the role of security in international relations has been illustrated with the use of relevant theoretical approaches. Few of the major security theories that include a strong set of roles in the international relations have been discussed through the following theories (Brown, 2014, p.87 & 99-102; Kaplan, 2005; p. 4-9; Baldwin, 1997; p.17). Defensive Realism According to the theorists, especially from the modern phenomenon, defensive realism is defined as an umbrella term in the international politics and foreign relation policies. The defensive theory in the international relations holds the concept that the international system delivers adequate incentives to expand only within a certain conditions. In this context, the absence of a universal sovereignty tends to develop situations wherein the mechanism used to strengthen the security system of one state becomes a major constraint for the other states to maintain their political and social security (Brown, 2014, p.102-103). In this regard, dilemma associated with the security often creates major concern for the states to worry regarding the future intentions along with relative power of the other states. The powers of the other states may pursue purely focussing on the strategies relating to the security of the other states. However, the concern inadvertently creates a likeliness of major conflicts or hostility with the other states. Although in certain cases, states often follow expansionist policies, the strong perception of the key leaders often compels to perceive that the aggressive way of operations to guarantee security of their state. The notion of defensive realism forecasts major variations by the extremely expansion strategies of the other nations and states, which further results the state to pursue moderate defensive ways to avert future expansion related intentions of the other states (Kaplan, 2005; p. 4-9; Baldwin, 1997; p.17). From multiple perspectives, the states with stronger security measures in the international system are more likely to strengthen their capability in the context of military, diplomatic conditions along with foreign and economic policies that represents restrain of possible threats from other states. In this regard, major examples of defensive realism can be characterised into few other theories including offense-defence theory, balance of threat theory, and security dilemma theory that pursue the nations and states to avert different types of possible threats from the neighbour nations or states (Brown, 2014, p.102-103). Offensive Realism Term offensive realism can also be regarded as a covering concept that includes various theories linked with international politics that provide a clear description about the analytical primacy about hostility and intolerance nature of the international system due to the result of conflicts. As similar to the defensive theory, the variants in the offensive realism are established on the basis of the theoretical concepts of neorealism (Brown, 2014, p.103, 107-108). In relation to the theoretical viewpoint of offensive theory, the notion embraces that the absence of international government tends to provide a strong set of incentives to the states to expand their territorial area by acquiring power above other states. The theory details about the States’ striving intentions towards maximising their relative authority or power as only the strongest states that can guarantee their long-term survival in the international system. The states underpinning this theory pursue the ideology and thoughts from the expansionist policies wherein the benefits of expanding dominance over other states overshadow the possible costs that can be experienced by the stronger state from other states. In this context, according to the theorists, the states with offensive realism face ever-present threat of the perception that other states are likely to conquer or deteriorate their social and political interests. The perception often compels the states to maintain adequate and continuous focus on strengthening their relative power along with offensive position through arms build-ups; unilateral foreign and economic policy; and opportunistic expansion related measures on the other states (Brown, 2014, p.328). Conclusion With due consideration to the theorists and scholars, a major understanding has been obtained about the key concepts, characteristics along with roles of international relations theories in the global political studies. According to a critical assessment of the theorists and scholars made in this essay, the definition of international relations has been identified based on two major categories including rationalist theories and post-positivist theory. In relation to the observation made in this essay, the international system has been facing profound periods that have radically changed the political diplomacy in international relations. In relation to the theories and their characteristics derived across different stages of world politics, change has been identified as an ever-lasting aspect in the international system. Changes in the political regimes especially in the large countries have been posing numbers of complex issues for both the analysts and political leaders to successfully grapple with. The battle of political and economic power of the states from the past decades differed noticeably from the changing notion in the international system since the aftermath of the Cold War. In relation to the modern changing dynamics in international system, the notion of security has been identified to be the major concern for the state to uphold their political and social ideology along with minimising threats from the other states that have relatively higher capabilities both in terms of policies and actions. According to the theoretical concepts discussed in this essay, it has been identified that the security of the states’ political and social ideology has been driven by the changing notion in the polarities of the international system. In order to critically assess the role of security in the international relations, the essay has demonstrated the key characteristics and political nature of Liberalists and Constructivists. The evaluation of these theories have provided a major insight in this essay to gain major understanding about the changes in the context of political ideologies of the political actors along with their perceptions on security of the states. According to the observation of the theories, the essay evaluated the key forces along with perceptions and political beliefs of Liberalism and Constructivism that have been shaping the international system. In addition, the theories have enabled to critically evaluate the roles of both Liberalism and Constructivism in maintaining their security related ideas and functions by illustrating their notion on independence along with absolute relative power as compared to other states. The defensive and offensive regimes discussed in this essay have elaborated the intentions of the States towards their political interests and ideologies to protect long-term sustainability of their relations with the international system. References Baldwin, D. A., 1997. The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 5-26. Bromley, S., 2014. Chapter 15 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Brown, W., 2014. Chapter 1 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Brown, W., 2014. Chapter 2 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Brown, W., 2014. Chapter 3 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Brown, W., 2014. Chapter 18 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Buzan, B. and Little, R., 2000 International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press. Cassels, A., 1996. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. Psychology Press. Conway, 2014. Chapter 16 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Corry, O., 2014. Chapter 13 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Corry, O., 2014. Chapter 14 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Corry, O., 2014. Chapter 19 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., 2014. Chapter 12 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Halliday, F., 1994 Rethinking International Relations. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Huysmans, J. & Conway, D., 2014. Chapter 17 in Brown, W. & et. al., 2014. International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics. The Open University. Kaplan, M. A., 2005. System and Politics in International Politics. ECPR Press. Moravcsik, A., 1992. Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Liberalism and the Nature of International System. [Online] Available at http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1432&context=auilr [Accessed March 24, 2014]. Rourke, J. T., 2008. International Politics on the World Stage. Thinking and Caring About World Politics, pp. 18-34. Stritzel, H., 2007. Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 357-383. In Stritzel, H., 2014. Security in Translation: Securitization Theory and the Localization of Threat. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. [Online] Available at: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bxlvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=Towards+a+Theory+of+Securitization:+Copenhagen+and+Beyond+Holger+Stritzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lcI9VfKwO8WeugSl04GwBQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Towards%20a%20Theory%20of%20Securitization%3A%20Copenhagen%20and%20Beyond%20Holger%20Stritzel&f=false [Accessed March 24, 2014]. Wendt, A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press. (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s2xjEd0ww2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Social+Theory+of+International+Politics,+wendt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g8s9VbDiD4biuQSi4ICwDQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Social%20Theory%20of%20International%20Politics%2C%20wendt&f=false) W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2010. The International System. Chapter Summary. [Online] Available at: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/polisci/essentials-of-international-relations5/ch/04/summary.aspx [Accessed March 24, 2014]. Kindly find below the required websites: 1. Baldwin, D. A., 1997. The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 5-26. [Online] Available at: http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~dbaldwin%2Fselected%2520articles%2FBaldwin%2520%25281997%2529%2520The%2520Concept%2520of%2520Security.pdf&ei=ensjVe_MC4uJuAS5qICYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHRuf77JtZEvDdkDT89vZavLj02rQ&sig2=v72uUywaCd4QRNGfj1RyZw&bvm=bv.89947451,d.c2E [Accessed March 24, 2014]. 2. Buzan, B. and Little, R., 2000 International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press. [Online] Available at: http://www.amazon.com/International-Systems-World-History-Relations/dp/0198780656 [Accessed March 24, 2014]. 3. Cassels, A., 1996. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World.Psychology Press. [Online] Available at: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DkN6M2mvh9EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed March 24, 2014]. 4. Halliday, F., 1994 Rethinking International Relations. Basingstoke, Macmillan. [Online] Available at: http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-International-Relations-Fred-Halliday/dp/0774805080 [Accessed March 24, 2014]. 5. Kaplan, M. A., 2008. System and Process in International Politics (ECPR Classics Series). ECPR Press. [Online] Available at: http://www.amazon.com/System-Process-International-Politics-Classics/dp/0954796624/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428389169&sr=1-3&keywords=System+and+Politics+in+International+Politics.+ECPR+Press [Accessed March 24, 2014]. 6. Rourke, J. T., 2008. International Politics on the World Stage. Thinking and Caring About World Politics, pp. 18-34. [Online] Available at: http://jeffreyfields.net/427/Site/Blog/3C90C230-B47B-4894-8E8E-F4C5078BDD88_files/Rourke-Realism,%20Liberalism,%20Constructivism.pdf [Accessed March 24, 2014]. Read More