Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
relations
J. Jackson-Preece
IR3140, 2790140
2011
Undergraduate study in
Economics, Management,
Finance and the Social Sciences
This subject guide is for a 300 course offered as part of the University of London
International Programmes in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences.
This is equivalent to Level 6 within the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ).
For more information about the University of London International Programmes
undergraduate study in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences, see:
www.londoninternational.ac.uk
This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:
Jennifer Jackson-Preece, Senior Lecturer in Nationalism in Europe, European Institute and
Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science.
This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to
pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising
from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable,
please use the form at the back of this guide.
Contents
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Aims ............................................................................................................................. 1
Learning outcomes ........................................................................................................ 1
How to use this subject guide ........................................................................................ 2
Structure of the guide .................................................................................................... 2
Essential reading ........................................................................................................... 4
Further reading.............................................................................................................. 4
Additional resources ...................................................................................................... 7
Online study resources ................................................................................................... 7
Useful websites ............................................................................................................. 8
Examination structure .................................................................................................. 10
Examination advice...................................................................................................... 10
Syllabus....................................................................................................................... 12
List of abbreviations used in this subject guide ............................................................. 12
Chapter 1: The idea of security............................................................................. 13
Aims of the chapter ..................................................................................................... 13
Learning outcomes ...................................................................................................... 13
Essential reading ......................................................................................................... 13
Further reading............................................................................................................ 13
Additional resources .................................................................................................... 13
The value of security .................................................................................................... 14
Key assumptions of security ......................................................................................... 15
Security of the state and security of the person............................................................. 17
Three paradigms of security ........................................................................................ 19
A reminder of your learning outcomes.......................................................................... 22
Sample examination questions ..................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2: The state as a security arrangement .................................................. 23
Aims of the chapter ..................................................................................................... 23
Learning outcomes ...................................................................................................... 23
Essential reading ......................................................................................................... 23
Further reading............................................................................................................ 23
Origins of the state as a security arrangement .............................................................. 24
Security of the prince ................................................................................................... 24
Security of the people .................................................................................................. 25
Nation states and national security .............................................................................. 26
A reminder of your learning outcomes.......................................................................... 27
Sample examination questions ..................................................................................... 27
Chapter 3: National security: current issues and contemporary application ...... 29
Aims of the chapter ..................................................................................................... 29
Learning outcomes ...................................................................................................... 29
Essential reading ......................................................................................................... 29
Further reading............................................................................................................ 29
National security as a reciprocal arrangement .............................................................. 30
National security policies ............................................................................................. 30
i
Contents
iii
Notes
iv
Introduction
Introduction
140 Security in international relations is a 300 course offered
on the Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences
(EMFSS) suite of programmes. It is a subject which provides insights
and understanding of order and stability both within and between
states. Many students when they approach this course think that
security is only concerned with states and their armed forces. A common
misunderstanding is to equate security with defence. But the security
agenda is much broader than this and now includes questions of force
and military preparedness problems and policies to do with human and
minority rights, migration, poverty, the environment and other societal
issues. Following on from this wider agenda, security in international
relations is increasingly concerned not only with the safety of states
but also of the peoples within them. What students take away from this
course is an understanding of security as a core value of human life and
an awareness that security policies will vary depending upon how one
answers the key questions: security in (or of) what; security from what;
and security by what means.
It is a particularly relevant course for those of you who want to go on to
careers in law or public administration, politics, international and nongovernmental organisations, or journalism as the way it looks at security
addresses issues of immediate concern to those engaged in a range of
advocacy, policy and media roles. A very similar course is offered at the
LSE as a third-year course. My own research addresses problems and
practices of ethnic diversity in a world of nation states including selfdetermination, boundaries, human and minority rights, ethnic cleansing,
genocide, and humanitarian intervention. Questions of security and
insecurity are integral to all of these issues, which yet again underscores
the broad significance of security in international relations. I hope that you
enjoy studying this course.
If taken as part of a BSc degree, you must have passed 11 Introduction
to international relations before this course may be attempted.
Aims
This course aims to:
introduce you to the central concepts in security studies
develop your comparative skills of analysis of differing security policies
in practice
promote critical engagement with the security policy literature and
enable you to display this engagement by developing your ability to
present, substantiate and defend complex arguments.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to demonstrate:
a critical understanding of the issues involved in security policy
decision making
an understanding of the contexts, pressures and constraints with which
security policymakers have to deal
1
Introduction
Essential reading
You should purchase:
Bain, W. (ed.) The empire of security and the safety of the people. (London:
Routledge, 2006) first edition [ISBN 9780415380195].
Buzan, B. People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in
the post cold war era. (London: Pearson, 2004) second edition
[ISBN 9781555872823].
Hough, P. Understanding global security. (London: Routledge, 2004) first edition
[ISBN 9780415296663].
Economides, Spyros and Mats Berdal (eds) United Nations interventionism,
19912004. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) first edition
[ISBN 9780521547673]. This text is essential only for Chapter 8.
Further reading
Please note that as long as you read the Essential reading you are then free
to read around the subject area in any text, paper or online resource. You
will need to support your learning by reading as widely as possible and by
thinking about how these principles apply in the real world. To help you
read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London
Online Library (see below).
Other useful texts for this course include:
Books
Bain, W. Between anarchy and society: trusteeship and the obligations of power.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) first edition [ISBN 0199260265].
Bull, H. The anarchical society. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)
third edition [ISBN 0231127634].
Buzan, B. The United States and the great powers. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004) first edition [ISBN 0745633757].
Hoffman, S. The ethics and politics of humanitarian intervention. (New York:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1997) first edition [ISBN 0268009368].
Jackson, R. The global covenant. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) new
edition [ISBN 0199262012].
Jackson-Preece, J. Minority rights. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005) first edition
[ISBN 0745623956].
Mayall, J. (ed.) The new interventionism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003) first edition [ISBN 0521551978].
Schelling, T. The strategy of conflict. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 2006) reprint edition [ISBN 0674840313].
4
Introduction
Vincent, R. Human rights and international relations. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987) first edition [ISBN 0521327989].
Walzer, M. Just and unjust wars. (New York: Basic Books, 2000) fourth edition
[ISBN 0465037070].
Wheeler, N. Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention in international society.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) new edition [ISBN 0199253102].
Articles
Ayoob, M. The security problematique of the Third World, World Politics 43(2)
1991 pp.25783.
Baldwin, D. The concept of security, Review of International Studies 23(1)
1997 pp.526.
Booth, K. Security and emancipation, Review of International Studies 17(4)
1991 pp.31326.
Buzan, B. Peace, power and security: contending concepts, Journal of Peace
Research 21(2) 1984 pp.10925.
Dunne T. and N. Wheeler We the peoples: contending discourses of security
in human rights theory and practice, International Relations 18(1) 2004
pp.923.
Hendrickson, D. The curious case of American hegemony: imperial aspirations
and national decline, World Policy Journal, Summer 2004, pp.122.
Herz, J. The security dilemma in international relations: background and
present problems, International Relations 17(4) 2003 pp.41116.
Kaldor, M. American power: from compellance to cosmopolitanism,
International Affairs 79(1) 2003 pp.122.
Kennan, G. Morality and foreign policy, Foreign Affairs 64(2) 1985 pp.205218.
Mandelbaum, M. A perfect failure: NATOs war against Yugoslavia, Foreign
Affairs 78(5) 1999 pp.28.
Rothschild, E. What is security? Ddalus 124(3) 1995 pp.5398.
Newman, E. Humanitarian intervention, legality and legitimacy, International
Journal of Human Rights 6(4) (2002) pp.102120.
Rudolph, C. Globalization and security, Security Studies 13(1) 2002 pp.132.
Simpson, J. The nuclear non-proliferation regime: back to the future? UNIDIR
Disarmament Forum 1 2004 pp.112.
Srensen, G. Individual security and national security, Security Dialogue 27(4)
1996 pp.37186.
Williams, M. Identity and the politics of security, European Journal of
International Relations 4(2) 1998 pp.20425.
United Kingdom, Terrorist Act, 2006, www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/
acts2006/20060011.htm
United States Congress Uniting and strengthening America by providing
appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct Terrorism Act (US Patriot
Act), 2001, http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/
hr3162.pdf
Works cited
Assessing the new normal: liberty and security for the post-September 11
United States (Washington, D.C.: Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights, 2003). www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/Assessing/
AssessingtheNewNormal.pdf
Bull, H. The anarchical society. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)
third edition [ISBN 0231127634].
Bailyn, J. The ideological origins of the American Revolution. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press, 1992) first edition [ISBN 0674443020].
Bain, W. Between anarchy and society: trusteeship and the obligations of power.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) first edition [ISBN 0199260265].
Berki, R. Security and society. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986) first edition
[ISBN 031270920X].
5
Introduction
Additional resources
Periodicals
The following are a list of recommended periodicals that are relevant to
this course:
Adelphi Papers
American Political Science Review
Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
European Journal of International Relations
Global Society
Human Rights Quarterly
International Affairs
International Security
Journal of Peace Research
Millennium
Nations and Nationalism
Peace and Conflict Studies
Political Studies
Prospect Magazine
Review of International Studies
Security Dialogue
Survival: The IISS Quarterly
The Economist Magazine
World Politics
The VLE
The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to
enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a
sense of community. It forms an important part of your study experience
with the University of London and you should access it regularly.
7
Useful websites
The following are a list of websites which may be useful in essay preparation.
Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in
April 2011. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and
you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages.
International organisations
United Nations
www.un.org is the main homepage
www.un.org/Docs/sc/ is the site of the Security Council
Introduction
Non-governmental organisations
End Genocide
www.endgenocide.org
Human Rights Watch
www.hrw.org
International Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent
www.icrc.org
Independent International Commission on Kosovo
www.kosovocommision.org
International Crisis Group
www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm
Minority Rights Group
www.minorityrights.org
Prevent Genocide
www.preventgenocide.org
Examination structure
The examination paper for this course is three hours in duration and
you are expected to answer four questions, from a choice of twelve.
The Examiner attempts to ensure that all of the topics covered in the
syllabus and subject guide are examined. Some questions could cover
more than one topic from the syllabus since the different topics are not
self-contained. A Sample examination paper appears as an appendix to
this guide, along with a sample Examiners commentary. The Examiners
commentaries contain valuable information about how to approach the
examination and so you are strongly advised to read them carefully. Past
examination papers and the associated reports are valuable resources
when preparing for the examination. You should ensure that all four
questions are answered, allowing an approximately equal amount of time
for each question, and attempting all parts or aspects of a question.
Examination advice
Important: the information and advice given here are based on the
examination structure used at the time this guide was written. Please
note that subject guides may be used for several years. Because of this
we strongly advise you to always check both the current Regulations for
relevant information about the examination, and the VLE where you
should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully
check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow
those instructions.
Answer the question asked
Your answer needs to address the question asked and not another that you
have seen on a past exam paper or that you would prefer to answer. To
10
Introduction
avoid this mistake, it is useful to clearly identify the precise question you
are answering from the outset. Similarly, you should also define the key
terms relating to that question. It is helpful to the examiner if, in the first
paragraph, you briefly indicate what your answer to the question will be,
the main points you will put forward in support of this position and the
order in which these will be discussed (this is often called signposting; for
more on this tactic see also the answer structure below).
Develop your own ideas
Remember, you are asked to put forward your own ideas in answering the
examination questions, so do not confuse analysis with description (i.e.,
the aim is not merely to identify what happened but to explain how it
came about, why these particular events, decisions, policies, people were
important, etc.). Similarly, you should not simply repeat what you have
read in the course. The examiner wants to know what you think and why
and so the aim is not to provide a summary of what various authors on the
reading list have argued but to discuss your own perspective in relation to
the issues surveyed. Finally, be sure to fully explain your ideas rather than
simply identify them in passing. To avoid this pitfall, always ask yourself
why do I think this point is important and then make sure to say precisely
that in your answer.
Support ideas with examples
Wherever possible, provide concrete examples and illustrations so that
your answer is based upon solid, empirical evidence. This evidence can
be provided by, among others: defining key terms and concepts; citing
a particular event, decision, policy, etc., to back up a generalisation;
providing dates whenever possible.
Structure
To the examiner, the structure and coherence of your argument are just
as important as your knowledge and understanding of the syllabus. To
help organise your thoughts quickly, it is always sensible to start with an
essay plan before you begin the actual writing. That way you will know
in advance what you are going to say and in what order, which will make
the writing easier. Your answers should always include an introduction
which identifies the question, defines key terms or concepts, and provides
signposts so that the examiner can follow your argument in the main
body; a main body which develops your answer by discussing the key
points on which it is based and supporting these with examples; and a
conclusion which recaps your answer and offers final reflections (why the
question is important, further implications of your answer, etc.)
Remember, it is important to check the VLE for:
up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements
for this course
where available, past examination papers and Examiners commentaries
for the course which give advice on how each question might best be
answered.
11
Syllabus
This course will interrogate the key concepts and dilemmas involved in
security policy by a careful examination of the leading security paradigms
national security, international security and human security. In each
case, we examine the historical circumstances out of which the paradigm
originates, the political problems it seeks to address, the constraints it
imposes upon policy makers, and its significance within contemporary
international society.
The principal themes to be addressed are:
What does it mean to be secure and why does it matter?
Does security for some automatically imply insecurity for others?
How have changes in domestic and international society influenced the
ways in which we respond to security dilemmas?
12
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
explain where the desire for security comes from, and how this desire is
reflected in everyday life
describe the kind of human activities we associate with security
discuss and compare the main international relations approaches to the
problem of insecurity
discuss the relationship between personal security and state security
describe and evaluate security policies in response to the threat of
international terrorism.
Essential reading
Bain, W. The empire of security and the safety of the people. Introduction and
Chapter 1.
Buzan, B. People, states and fear. Introduction.
Hough, P. Understanding global security. Chapter 1.
Morality and foreign policy, George F. Kennan Foreign Affairs Vol. 64 (2)
(1985), pp.20518 (article consists of 14 pages)
Further reading
Baldwin, D. The concept of security, Review of International Studies 23(1)
1997 pp.526.
Berki, R. Security and society (1986) Chapters 1 and 2.
Buzan, B. Peace, power and security: contending concepts, Journal of Peace
Research 21(2) 1984 pp.10925.
Jackson, R. The global covenant. (2000) Chapter 8.
Huysmans, J. Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier,
European Journal of International Relations, 4(2) 1998 pp.22655.
Rothschild, E. What is security?, Ddalus pp.124(3) 1995 pp.5398.
Additional resources
International Relations and Security Network www.isn.ethz.ch/ Center for
Security Studies, ETH, Zrich, Switzerland.
13
1
The Concise Oxford
Dictionary (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, eighth
edition 1990), p.1093.
Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan. Edited by
Michael Oakeshott
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1946), esp. Chapter. 13.
Activity
Read Buzan, introduction, Hough, Chapter 1, and Bain, Introduction, then answer the
following questions.
1. How is the desire for security reflected in social life?
2. What sort of human activities are associated with security?
3. How does international relations approach the problem of insecurity?
Global covenant,
p.192.
Thomas Hobbes
Leviathan p.81.
So, paradoxically, at the very moment that leviathan resolves the problem
of personal security within the state, it creates a new problem of insecurity
between states. That security dilemma between states is a defining feature
of international relations up to and including the present time. It is the
consequence of the existence of a plurality of independent sovereign
states, which Hedley Bull describes as an anarchical society.
Hobbes, Leviathan,
Chapter. 13, p.83.
8
17
3. Are the human rights of the entire population of the state generally respected?
4. Based on your answers to questions 13, does this state protect the security of the
people?
National security
The proponents of national security, who we often refer to as realists,
generally assume that we live in a world where states are both the
main sources of security and the main security threats. You will recall
from 11 Introduction to international relations that realism
envisions a world of mutual fear, suspicion and conflict in which states
must constantly struggle for survival. The problem of national security
arises out of this anarchical world view, that is, a world of independent
and armed states which are capable of inflicting harm upon one another.
National security policies are directed at creating and maintaining armed
forces for national defence and deterrence. They also involve measures
designed to deal with internal threats to security such as criminals,
rebels, terrorists, etc. The national security paradigm is well equipped to
address circumstances like those of the Cold War where two rival states
are actively opposing one another. But it is less well placed to interrogate
problems of weak, failed, or totalitarian states because of a tendency to
collapse the distinction between state security and personal security. Thus,
for example, realists like Schelling produced convincing accounts of the
arms race between the USA and the USSR during the Cold War but were
largely silent on the security dilemmas confronting civil rights proponents
in Jim Crow states of the American South or political dissidents in
communist states of Central and Eastern Europe.
Activity
Compare and contrast the security objectives of Canada: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.as
p?Language=E&Page=publications&Sub=natsecurnat&Doc=natsecurnat_e.htm and the
United States: www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
1. What are the similarities?
2. What are the differences?
3. Can you think of any reasons which might explain these differences?
International security
The proponents of international security, who we often refer to as
pluralists or rationalists, see a world characterised by a mixture of conflict
and cooperation. From this perspective, relations between states constitute
an anarchical society. Thus although it is true that there is no single
source of authority or government, international relations nevertheless are
reasonably orderly and purposeful, and subject to mutual regulation and
constraint stemming from a shared interest in survival and coexistence.
19
Human security
The proponents of human security, who we often refer to as solidarists or
revolutionists, consider personal security to be a fundamental problem
of international relations and not merely a matter for the domestic
politics of the state concerned. Human security is often presented as a
new perspective on security questions. To describe human security in
this way is somewhat deceptive because there are historical precedents
for assigning moral primacy to individuals. Immanuel Kant, for example,
believed in universal duty towards other human beings without exception
of place or jurisdiction. Kant describes a universal right of mankind by
which he means the legitimate claim of all men and women to recognition
and protection by public authorities as individual human beings. Similarly,
human rights law, the doctrine of crimes against humanity, the rights of
non-combatants under international humanitarian law (the laws of war)
and the prohibition of genocide, to name only a few issues, existed in
order to protect personal security over and above the security of states
long before the term human security was coined.
The core idea embodied by human security is essentially that the security
of the person, the security of the state and the security of the society of
states are fundamentally interconnected you cannot have one without
the others. If any one man or woman or child in the world is unsafe, then
nobody else can be safe either. To tolerate personal insecurity in one state
risks spreading insecurity to other states, and by extension, international
society itself. For example, human or minority rights violations in one
state may spark refugee flows that cross frontiers, which in turn create
a problem of asylum seekers in other states and a consequent matter
of concern for international agencies like the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. A similar chain effect might be seen with
regard to terrorism, or civil war, or other threats which threaten to overrun
international frontiers.
The criticism that human security proponents direct at contemporary
security arrangements exactly follows on from this principle of human
interconnectedness which continues to exist regardless of juridical
boundaries. Torture, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, genocide and other gross
human rights violations within states cannot be tolerated if the safety
of all human beings is to be achieved. Something must be done to stop
them, and states should not hide behind the international legal principles
of equal sovereignty and non-intervention to evade this fundamental
humanitarian obligation. The human security paradigm is becoming
increasingly influential in international relations. Nevertheless, for the
time being at least, with a few notable exceptions like Canada, it remains
disproportionately a subject of non-governmental organisations rather
than the foreign policies of states. And it is still far from universally
accepted.
21
Activity
Read Bain Chapter 1. Then consider each of the three security paradigms we have just
summarised and answer the following questions.
1. Which of these three do you find most appealing and on what basis?
2. Are they equally important in international relations?
3. Or do you think one security paradigm dominates and, if so, why?
The subsequent chapters will more fully interrogate the core content
and practical implications of these three security paradigms for our
understanding of international relations.
22
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
describe and examine why the state is viewed as a formidable security
organisation
describe and analyse the relationship between popular sovereignty and
the security of the people
explain what conditions must be satisfied for the ideal of national
security to be achieved.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapters 5 and 9.
Buzan People, states and fear. Chapters 1 and 2.
Further reading
Cohen, Y., B.R. Brown and A.F.K. Organski The paradoxical nature of statemaking: the violent creation of order, American Political Science Review
75(4) 1981.
Jackson-Preece, J. National minorities and the European nation states system.
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) first edition [ISBN 0198294379] Chapter 2.
Jackson-Preece, J. Minority rights, (2005) Chapters 2 and 5.
Krause, K. Insecurity and state formation in the global military order: the
Middle Eastern case, European Journal of International Relations 2(3) 1996
pp.31954.
Mayall, J. (ed.) Nationalism and international society. (2003) pp.569 and
pp.11125.
Neocleous, M. From social to national security, Security Dialogue 37(3) 2006.
Walker, R.J.B. Security, sovereignty and the challenge of world politics,
Alternatives 15(1) 1990: pp.327.
Williams, Michael C. Identity and the politics of security, European Journal of
International Relations 42 1998 pp.20425.
Works cited
Southern, R. The making of the Middle Ages. (2003).
Bailyn, J. The ideological origins of the American Revolution. (1992).
23
Even the law itself was uncertain. Instead of a unified legal order there
existed a jumble of competing and frequently contradictory laws and
customs some of it based on the remnants of Roman law, some on
ecclesiastical law, some on ancient barbaric codes. Justice was largely a doit-yourself affair and therefore frequently arbitrary. For example, the blood
feud whereby the family of a murdered person could exact revenge on
the family of the murderer persisted in penal law (albeit with increasing
restrictions) until it was finally extinguished by royal prerogative in the
twelfth century. Violence was commonplace and, as Thomas Hobbes so
eloquently put it, the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
The state emerged as a way of imposing order and control on this hitherto
chaotic social condition.
It is at this point in the history of political ideas that the concept of the
nation achieves political salience. Who are the people in whom sovereignty
ultimately resides? The people are the nation and the state exists as an
expression of the national will. The principle of all sovereignty rests
essentially in the nation. No body and no individual may exercise authority
which does not emanate from the nation expressly (Article 3, 1789
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen).
2
J. Bailyn, The
ideological origins of the
American Revolution.
(Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press, 1992),
p.55
Activity
Read either the 1789 French Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen,
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm, or the 1776 American Declaration of
Independence, www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm, and then answer the following
questions.
25
1. On what basis do these revolutionary declarations criticise the security of the prince?
2. How do they characterise the security of the people?
3. Is this characterisation still valid today?
The security implications of this new formulation of authority are
immense. Henceforth, the state would belong to the people and not to
the prince. Consequently, the people were no longer the object of security
policy but instead its central subject. Nowhere is this transformation more
apparent than in the idea of a popular right of rebellion against tyrannical
government.
For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously and to resist
their prince, even to the dethroning of him, is not criminal but a
reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights.3
It was just such a right which the American and French revolutionaries
claimed as justification for their actions.
Activity
Read Bain Chapters 5 and 9, then answer the following questions.
1. What view of security is reflected in the doctrine of self-determination?
2. Have demands for self-determination supported or subverted the national security of
existing states?
3. What kind of national security policies have been directed at problems of ethnic and
cultural diversity within states?
4. Is the personal security of the majority compatible with the personal security of the
minority? Why or why not?
Jonathan Mayhew,
1750, as quoted in
Bailyn, p.93.
state interests. This ideal is captured by the Latin expression: ubi bene, ibi
patria: where it is well with me, there is my country.
For the national security paradigm to hold true, the coercive power of
the state should be used as a last resort and as rarely as possible. In other
words, the state is legitimate only in so far as its coercive power affects
most people marginally, negligibly, and indirectly, while its full might
is meted out to a relatively small (and in principle) indefinite group of
law-breakers.4 That is the ideal, and in many states it closely corresponds
to historical reality. We might even go so far as to say that the history of
such countries in the period since 1945 bears out the liberal idea that a
secure state is the ultimate foundation for the good life. Citizens of such
states examples include the member states of the European Union, the
United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, among others
enjoy the highest standards of living in the history of humankind. These
are of course highly internationalised nation states, whose populations
benefit greatly from common security arrangements (NATO, etc.) as well
as economic unions (like the European Union and the North American
Free Trade Association) and internationally institutionalised free trade
(GATT, WTO), etc. This enviable condition owes much to the states ability
to create and maintain a secure society in which individual freedom is
protected.
Berkhi, p.53
Activity
Read Buzan Chapters 1 and 2 and then answer the following questions.
1. What does the state exist to do?
2. What is the states relationship to the society which it contains?
3. How does the maximal state differ from the minimal state?
4. Is either kind of state more conducive to personal security and, if so, on what basis?
27
Notes
28
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and
activities, you should be able to:
describe the relationship between popular identity and national security
identify what conditions must be satisfied for the ideal of national
security to be achieved
give examples of states that do not satisfy the ideal of national security
and describe how they fall short of this ideal.
Essential reading
Hough Understanding global security. Chapters 2 and 3.
Buzan People, states and fear. Chapters 3 and 6.
Further reading
Ayoob, M. The security problematique of the Third World, World Politics 43(2)
1991.
Ayoob, M. Subaltern realism: international relations theory meets the Third
World, in Stephanie Neuman (ed.) International Relations Theory and the
Third World. (New York: St. Martins Press, 2005) first edition
[ISBN 0312177062] pp.3154.
California Senate Office of Research, The Patriot Act, Other Post 9/11 Enforcement
Powers and the Impact on Californias Muslim Communities 2004,
www.sen.ca.gov/publications/subject/IMMIG.txt
Enriquez, Juan Too many flags? Foreign Policy 116 1999 pp.3049.
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia: the impact of 7 July bomb
attacks on Muslim communities in the EU. (2005). http://eumc.europa.eu/
eumc/material/pub/London/London-Bomb-attacks-EN.pdf
Human Rights Watch In the name of counter-terrorism: human rights abuses
worldwide. http://hrw.org/un/chr59/counter-terrorism-bck.pdf (2003).
Srensen, G. War and state-making: why doesnt it work in the Third World?
Security Dialogue 32 (3) 2001 pp.34154.
29
Works cited
Assessing the new normal: liberty and security for the post-September 11
United States (2003). www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/
AssessingAssessing theNewNormal.pdf
Sanctioned bias: racial profiling since 9/11 (New York: American Civil Liberties
Union, 2004).
United States Congress Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate
tools required to intercept and obstruct Terrorism Act (US Patriot Act), 2001,
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf
www.whitehouse.gov/
nsc/nssintro.html
www.homeoffice.gov.
uk/security/
Activity
Read Buzan Chapters 3 and 6 and Hough Chapters 2 and 3, then answer the following
questions.
1. Explain the distinction between domestic security and external security.
2. Why is this distinction crucial to an understanding of national security?
3. How does non-state violence differ from state violence?
4. What type of violence constitutes the gravest threat to national security today?
5. Does the same answer hold true for developed states and developing states? Why or
why not?
3
Assessing the new
normal: liberty and
security for the postSeptember 11 United
States (Washington,
D.C.: Lawyers
Committee for Human
Rights, 2003). www.
humanrightsfirst.org/
pubs/descriptions/
AssessingAssessing
theNewNormal.pdf
In other words, even where its function more or less corresponds with the
liberal ideal, national security comes at a price. Citizens must pay for their
security. They do that in their taxes, in their obligation to obey the law, in
the requirement to perform military duty in times of war or threat of war,
and in accepting certain incursions into their usual civil liberties when
circumstances require it.
The price of security is not without its controversies. In a liberal
democracy there will always be those who claim the price is too high
because the perceived gain in national security does not justify the
necessary infringement of individual freedom needed to sustain it. We see
exactly this sort of argument at work in public criticism directed at post9/11 anti-terrorist measures in the United States, the United Kingdom
and elsewhere. For example, the United Kingdoms 2006 Terrorism Act
allows groups or organisations to be banned for glorifying terrorism or
distributing publications that advocate it.5 Human rights campaigners
argued the law was drawn far too widely and as a result it faced stiff
opposition in the British House of Lords. Members of the House of
Lords were worried that such restrictions constituted an unjustifiable
infringement on the freedom of speech and rejected the proposal five
times before finally voting it through in March 2006. Liberal Democrat and
Conservative Members of Parliament also voted against the 2006 Terrorism
Bill, arguing that existing legislation already covered the glorification
offence.
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/
politics/4905304.stm
situations where traditional leaders have more authority than the state in
a certain area of competency or regional jurisdiction.
Domestic circumstances in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia,
Sierra Leone and the Sudan have in recent years all been characterised by
conditions of armed conflict, famine, disease and refugees. Consequently,
these are widely acknowledged to be failed states.
Activity
Read the following article on the 2006 Failed States Index: www.globalpolicy.org/nations/
sovereign/failed/2006/0502failedindex.htm and then answer the following questions.
1. What criterion was used by the Failed States Index to rank the relative success and
failure of states?
2. What paradigm of security is reflected in this criterion?
3. Why was Sudan identified as the most failed state?
Significantly, these four are far from being isolated cases: according to
the 2005 Failed States Index compiled by Foreign Policy and the Fund
for Peace, about 2 billion people live in insecure states, with varying
degrees of vulnerability to widespread civil conflict.6 In other words,
for somewhere in the region of 2 billion men, women and children
worldwide, national security has failed to guarantee personal security. This
statistic is a very damning indictment of the national security paradigm.
And it calls into question the very basis upon which security is understood
in the liberal tradition the nation state is a tremendous boon to personal
security in some places, but in very many others it is tremendous liability.
34
6
www.foreignpolicy.
com/story/cms.
php?story_id=3098
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
explain how anarchy gives rise to problems of international security
describe how international society operates as a security arrangement
describe and evaluate the role of the great powers in maintaining
international security
critically discuss the application of the balance of power and concert of
great powers.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapter 4.
Buzan People, states and fear. Chapters 4 and 5.
Further reading
Buzan, B. International security and international society, in Rick Fawn,
Jeremy Larkin and Robert Newman (eds), International society after the
Cold War. (London: Macmillan, 1996) first edition [ISBN 0312161042].
Buzan, B. The United States and the great powers.
Cerny, P. The new security dilemma: divisibility, defection and disorder in the
global era, Review of International Studies 26(4) (2000) pp.62346.
Jervis, R. Security regimes, International Organisation 36(2) 1982.
Jervis, R. From balance to concert: a study of international security
cooperation, World Politics 38(1) 1985.
Mayall, J. (ed.) The new interventionism. (2003).
Sheehan, M. International security: an analytical survey. (Boulder Col.: Lynne
Rienner, 2005) first edition [ISBN 1588262731] Chapter 3.
Wendt, A. Why a world state is inevitable, European Journal of International
Relations 9(4) (2003) pp.491542.
Works cited
Bull, H. The anarchical society. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)
third edition [ISBN 0231127634].
Bull, H. Society and anarchy in international relations, in M. Wight and H.
Butterfield (eds) Diplomatic investigations. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1968) first edition [ISBN 0674210018] pp.37.
35
Bull, Society
and anarchy in
international relations,
in Martin Wight and
Herbert Butterfield,
(eds), Diplomatic
Investigations
(Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press,
1968), p.37.
its basic political principle. From 1648 onwards, international society has
sought to preserve an always precarious international security by ensuring
that the foundation principles of international law are respected and the
balance of power is maintained.
Activity
Read the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/westphal.htm and
then answer the following questions.
1. What features, if any, of the international security paradigm are apparent in the 1648
Peace of Westphalia?
2. Why do you think the Peace of Westphalia is widely cited as the origin of
contemporary international society?
3. Does it deserve this reputation? Why or why not?
International security
The international security paradigm aspires towards a general condition of
peace, order and lawfulness within the society of states. The preservation
of international security is an obligation incumbent upon all states which
are members of international society. Nevertheless, in practice primary
responsibility for providing international security has come to rest on those
states were refer to as great powers. It is precisely their disproportionate
power which gives these states their unique position within international
society. Disproportionate power can be used for good or ill. For example,
only a great power has the potential to become a hegemony. But at the
same time, only a great power will have the capability to take effective
measures, including ultimately military intervention, against those states
whose actions threaten international security. A recurring problem of
international security is that of ensuring that all of the great powers
remain good international citizens who act to support and not to subvert
international law and the balance of power. On those occasions when a
great power begins to act as an international bully or outlaw, international
security is put at risk and the potential for catastrophic war increases.
The great powers more or less acted in concert for most of the nineteenth
century following the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 although not without
a few notable exceptions such as the Crimean War between Britain,
France and Russia (185356) and the Franco-Prussian war (187071).
In contrast, for most of the twentieth century (roughly 191489), the
great powers were divided. Some powers sought to preserve the status quo
(United Kingdom, France and the United States) while others at various
times wanted to revise the rules of international relations in their own
favour (Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union). International security
could not be maintained in the presence of this great-power rivalry, and
so it degenerated into two world wars (191418 and 193945) and an
armed stalemate that we refer to as the Cold War (194789).
Global covenant,
pp.20105.
37
39
Notes
40
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
outline the policies associated with international security
distinguish between status quo and revisionist powers
define hegemony and discuss its significance for international security
explain how international security may be a proximate cause of
personal insecurity in weak, failed or quasi-states.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapter 3.
Buzan People, states and fear. Chapters 6 and 7.
Hough Understanding global security. Chapter 6.
The lessons of Somalia not everything went wrong by Chester A. Crocker,
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, No.3 (1995) available online at www.pbs.org/
wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/readings/lessons.html
The lessons of Somalia not everything went wrong by Chester A. Crocker,
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, No.3 (1995) available online at
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/readings/lessons.html
Further reading
Bodansky, D. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: a post-mortem,
American Journal of International Law (2010), available online at
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:dwsH6D5JBzwJ:scholar.google.
com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=2009&as_yhi=2010&as_subj=soc
Economides, S. and M. Berdal (eds) United Nations interventionism,
19912004. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) first edition
[ISBN 9780521547673]. Chapter 3.
Giddens, A. Politics of climate change. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009) first
edition, [ISBN 074564693X].
Hendrickson, D. The curious case of American hegemony: imperial aspirations
and national decline, World Policy Journal, Summer 2004 pp.122.
Herz, J.H. The security dilemma in international relations: background and
present problems, International Relations 17(4) 2003 pp.41116.
Holsti, K.J. Peace and war. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) first
edition [ISBN 0521390486] Chapter 6.
Ignatieff, M. Empire lite, Prospect 83 2003 pp.3643.
41
Military intervention
The (first) Gulf War: a success?
The international response to the (first) Gulf War of 199091 is
representative of the way in which international security was intended
to operate.1 The first Security Council resolution on the crisis (Resolution
660) acknowledged that there exists a breach of international peace
and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 660
demanded that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally
from Kuwait, and urged Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences
through negotiations. All subsequent actions by the UN followed on from
resolution 660, including the authorisation of armed force (resolution
678. A coalition of states was formed under American military leadership
to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait. This military action to defend the
sovereignty of Kuwait and punish Iraq for its unlawful aggression against
Kuwait received widespread support from the members of international
society. In sum, on this occasion the great powers acted in concert and
according to the principles laid out in the United Nations Charter. As a
result of the American-led military campaign (itself duly authorised by the
United Nations and supported and assisted by the international coalition),
Iraqi forces withdrew from Kuwait and the political and territorial status
quo in the Middle East was restored.
42
Somalia: a failure?
In contrast, the international response to civil war in Somalia during the
early 1990s discloses some of the pitfalls associated with international
security.2 In this case, great-power involvement was rather more tentative
and the outcome more limited. Whereas the First Gulf War is universally
hailed as a success, international involvement in Somalia is generally
considered to be a failure.
The downfall of President Siad Barre in January 1991 resulted in a
power struggle and clan clashes in many parts of Somalia. The hostilities
resulted in widespread death and destruction. As a result, almost one
million Somalis sought refuge in neighbouring states. The political
chaos, deteriorating security situation, widespread banditry and looting,
and extent of physical destruction compounded the crisis and severely
constrained the delivery of humanitarian aid. Moreover, the conflict
threatened stability in the Horn of Africa region, and its continuation
occasioned threats to international peace and security in the area.
44
Activity
Read the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) www1.umn.edu/humanrts/icty/dayton/
daytonframework.html and then answer the following questions.
1. What features, if any, of the international security paradigm are apparent in the
Dayton Agreement (1995)?
2. Do you think the Dayton Agreement was conducive to international peace and
stability in the Balkans? Why or why not?
Nuclear non-proliferation
From the beginning of the nuclear era, it was apparent that nuclear
weapons technology was a fundamental threat to and thus appropriate
subject of international security. The American nuclear attack on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 led to the unconditional surrender
of Japan and, in so doing, ended the Second World War. Paradoxically,
this nuclear attack simultaneously restored a condition of peace to
international society while also opening up the possibility for future
nuclear conflicts between states. Indeed, by the early 1950s a nuclear
arms race was underway between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Nuclear proliferation refers to the acquisition and spread of nuclear
technology and especially weapons among states. Non-proliferation is
an omnibus term used to describe all those policies intended to halt or
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
As early as 1946, efforts began to create an international monitoring
system for nuclear technology. These efforts came to an abrupt end in
1949 when the Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb. In 1953,
US President Dwight D. Eisenhower called for the United Nations to
take the lead in safeguarding against the spread of nuclear weapons. In
1957, this proposal culminated in the establishment of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was given the dual responsibility for
promoting the peaceful use of nuclear technology while also controlling its
application to weapons.
The idea of nuclear non-proliferation gained support in the 1960s and
a Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) was agreed
in 1968 and came into effect in 1970. The NPT has as its purpose the
prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five nuclear states
recognised by the treaty (United States, United Kingdom, France, China
and the Soviet Union), international cooperation for the peaceful use of
nuclear energy, and the goal of eventual nuclear disarmament. The NPT
provides, in Article X, for a conference to be convened 25 years after its
entry into force to decide whether it should continue in force indefinitely,
or be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. Accordingly, at
the NPT Review and Extension Conference in May 1995, signatory states
unanimously agreed on its indefinite extension, and decided that review
conferences should continue to be held every five years. The most recent
review conference took place in May 2010.
The NPT, with 189 signatories, is the foundation of the global nuclear
non-proliferation regime and, as such, a core instrument of international
security. But the problem of proliferation persists not least because certain
states known to have nuclear capabilities remain outside the NPT regime.
North Korea famously withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and (as of 2010)
had yet to rejoin. India, Israel and Pakistan are not currently signatories
and show no willingness to sign in the foreseeable future. Those who
argue that nuclear non-proliferation contributes to international security
45
Climate change
Climate change, also commonly known as global warming, is now widely
recognised as a fundamental threat to humanity and therefore also an
important subject of international security. Scientists believe that climate
change is already causing more frequent occurrences of drought, flooding
and rises in malaria. Other phenomena attributed to climate change are
increased incidents of hurricanes and forest fires. Among the potential
long-term consequences of climate change are rising sea levels and
damage to crops, which could precipitate widespread famine. Some of
the most serious effects of climate change are occurring in states least
prepared to counter them. For example, African states are among the
most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. These environmental
concerns may threaten peace and stability between states by, among other
things, precipitating mass population movements across frontiers, creating
circumstances that facilitate the global spread of disease (pandemics) and
engendering conflict between states over access to and control of ever
dwindling resources (food, clean water, etc.).
In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) was adopted as the basis for an international response to
the problem. With 192 signatory states, the convention enjoys nearuniversal membership. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilise
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.
The UNFCC is augmented by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has 184
signatories. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the Third Conference of
the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December
1997. The Kyoto Protocol has the same goals and mechanisms of the
UNFCC. The main distinction between the two, however, is that whereas
the convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilise carbon
emissions, the protocol requires them to do so. As part of their Kyoto
undertakings, 37 industrialised countries and the member states of the
European Union have committed to reducing their carbon emissions
by an average of 5 per cent by 2012 against 1990 levels. The UNFCCC
and its Kyoto Protocol are also designed to assist developing countries
in adapting to the inevitable effects of climate change. They facilitate
the implementation of technologies that can protect against the adverse
consequences of climate change for example, the creation of saltresistant crops and encourage the exchange of best practices with regard
to adaptation measures.
46
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/sci/
tech/8422307.stm
www.iiea.com/
blogosphere/
copenhagen--a-newframework-for-climatechaos
Activity
Read Q&A: The Copenhagen Climate Summit, available online at http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8278973.stm and Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal,
available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8422133.stm.
Then reflect on the following:
1. Is there a fundamental contradiction between national interest and the requirements
of international security with respect to climate change?
2. Did the great powers (e.g., the United States, China, the European Union) support or
subvert international security at the Copenhagen Conference?
3. In your opinion, was the 2009 Copenhagen Conference a success or a failure and
on what basis?
Great-power rivalry
For starters, the great powers do not always act in concert. Far from it,
they are frequently divided to such a degree that cooperative efforts to
protect and promote international security do not occur. This limitation
was especially apparent during the Cold War when the permanent
members of the Security Council abused their veto power to prevent any
action proposed by their Cold War adversaries. Following the end of the
Cold War, this deadlock was overcome and the early 1990s saw a number
of international security measures sanctioned by the Security Council;
several of these were discussed previously. Unfortunately, this new-found
willingness to act in concert appears to have been short-lived, and so by
the end of the 1990s we once again saw evidence of great-power disunity
and obstructionism. In 1999, for example, NATO acted without explicit
UN Security Council authorisation to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Unilateral action was taken because of a threat of veto in the Security
Council by Russia and China. Paradoxically, NATO later claimed it was acting
in support of the Security Council and by extension international security
even though its actions were not specifically endorsed by the Council.
6
David Hendrickson,
The curious case of
American hegemony:
imperial aspirations and
national decline, World
Policy Journal, Summer
2004, p.3.
As quoted in
Hendrickson, p.4.
And the key threat associated with a hegemony is precisely that the
overthrow of the pluralist international order and the establishment of a
solidarist empire in its place. The extent to which we are now witnessing
the emergence of an American hegemony is, of course, the subject of much
debate among international relations scholars.
Activity
Read David Hendrickson, The curious case of American hegemony: imperial aspirations
and national decline, World Policy Journal, Summer 2004, available online at http://
personalwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~dhendrickson/Essays/WPJ_Curious_Case_of_Amer_
Hegemony.pdf, then reflect upon the following.
1. What is the Bush Doctrine?
2. Does it represent a rejection of international security, and if so how?
3. In your opinion, will the United States continue to act as a hegemony for the
foreseeable future? Or will American foreign policy return to the constraints of
international law and multilateralism? Why or why not?
For an extended
analysis of this
development, see
R. Jackson Quasistates: sovereignty,
international relations
and the third world
(Cambridge: CUP, 1990).
Before 1945, the understanding was that states would have to take care
of their own security needs. Small or weak states could try to enter into
alliances with great powers, but there was no automatic guarantee of
their sovereignty or territorial integrity. As a result, many states lost
territory and eventually their political independence to great powers
with revisionist intentions towards the post-First World War territorial
settlement. Examples of such losses include the Japanese occupation
of Manchuria (1931), the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1935) and the
German and Hungarian partition of Czechoslovakia (1938/39). As Robert
Jackson notes, the security dilemmas experienced by small or weak states
during the pre-1939 era is in stark contrast to circumstances post-1945.
49
The equal state sovereignty of small and weak states was by and large
upheld after 1945. The underlying ethos of international security was
directly repudiated by many great powers during the inter-war period, and
for this more than any other reason, the League of Nations was unable
to function as it had originally been intended. No such direct repudiation
has occurred after 1945 neither of the Cold War superpowers nor the
would-be post-Cold War American hegemony has clearly or categorically
broken with the international security paradigm. And, for all its various
shortcomings, the United Nations has not received the same degree of
contempt that was heaped upon the League of Nations.
The result of these developments has generally been to maintain the
integrity and survival of quasi-states and failed states that otherwise may
have ceased to exist. On the surface this might seem to be a good thing
weak states are protected from international predators but it has also
been the proximate cause of much human suffering. Weak, quasi- and
failed states are fundamentally flawed in two key respects: there is no
effective, central government control over the jurisdiction instead,
the territory is usually ruled by various and often competing regional
warlords and, on many occasions, this rivalry degenerates into civil war;
governments are generally corrupt and therefore concerned first and
foremost with their own personal interests and aspirations. The people
in power who possess the guns and in so doing control the wealth and
resources are thus relatively secure. But the rest of the population over
whom they (mis)rule are fundamentally insecure. This perverse, albeit
unintended, consequence of the international security paradigm post-1945
has prompted solidarists to argue that both national and international
security are fundamentally flawed because of their inability to protect
millions of men, women and children in places like Sudan or Sierra Leone
or the Congo, to name only a few examples.
Activity
Read Bain Chapter 3 and Buzan Chapters 6 and 7 and then answer the following
questions.
1. Do you agree with the suggestion that force is essential to order in a situation of
anarchy?
2. How does collective security differ from national security?
3. Is there a fundamental contradiction between the idea of defence and the idea of
security?
4. Does a struggle between status quo and revisionist powers continue to dominate the
issue of international security?
50
51
Notes
52
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
distinguish between state-centred and person-centred approaches to
security
identify the main characteristics of human security
provide examples of human security policies
discuss the relationship between human security and globalisation.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapter 8.
Buzan People, states and fear. Chapter 9.
Further reading
Booth, Ken Security and emancipation, Review of International Studies 17(4)
1991.
Srensen, Georg Individual security and national security, Security Dialogue
27(4) 1996 pp.37186.
Suhrke, Astri Human security and the interests of states, Security Dialogue
30(3) 1999 pp.26576.
Works cited
Our global neighbourhood: the report of the Commission on Global Governance
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p.84.
in the state of nature and therefore subject only to the laws of nature and
not to those of the pre-existing social order. Thus, what today is termed
a failed state (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, etc.) is in Hobbes
rendering not a state at all but a reversion to the (violent) natural order.
The insecurity of those individuals who find themselves in such places is
simply the natural circumstances of humankind without the social artifice.
Their plight may be worthy of sympathy from those more fortunately
placed within a social order, but it does not present any serious moral
challenge to the idea of Leviathan (or the state) as such. Nor does it pose
any immediate dilemmas for those who espouse a national or international
security perspective unless it threatens the political order existing
elsewhere.
Our global
neighbourhood:
the report of the
Commission on Global
Governance (Oxford:
Oxford University Press,
1995), p.84.
ethnic group in a state targets its minority citizens). Moreover, the fact that
a particular action was sanctioned in domestic law prevailing at the time
it was committed or was authorised in military orders is not a defence
where crimes against humanity are concerned. This concept, then, extends
the human security paradigm to domestic, peacetime circumstances such
as those pertaining in Germany during the Nazi period and removes the
legitimacy of domestic laws sanctioning gross human rights violations.
Article 6 of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT
Charter) adopted to assist in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals
defined crimes against humanity as murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian
population before or during the war. The IMT Charter was acceded to by
nineteen states in addition to the original signatories Great Britain, the
United States, France and the Soviet Union. Moreover, both the United
Nations General Assembly and the Convention on the Nonapplicability of
Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968)
ultimately affirmed the principles of international law recognised in the
IMT Charter and the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal thus further
confirming crimes against humanity and the inclusion of mass deportation
under this rubric as customary law. Most recently, the 1998 Rome Statute
of the International Criminal court also recognised crimes against
humanity as falling within its area of competency.
Activity
Read Bain Chapter 8 and Buzan Chapter 9 and then answer the following questions.
1. To what extent is the human security agenda a product of globalisation?
2. Is human security an example of what Buzan terms a holistic concept of security,
and, if so, on what basis?
56
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
evaluate the success and failure of the human security paradigm
describe how human security is constrained by state sovereignty
discuss the relationship between human security and environmental
policy
discuss the relationship between human security and international
political economy
discuss the potential contradiction between human security and plural
values.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapter 6.
Hough Understanding global security. Chapters 4, 5, 7 and 11.
Further reading
Bellamy, A. Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention
and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs, 20(2) (2006)
pp.14370.
Bellamy, A. Responsibility to protect. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008) first
edition [ISBN 0745643485].
Bellamy, A. and M. McDonald The utility of human security: which humans?
What security? A reply to Thomas and Tow, Security Dialogue 33(3)
(2002) pp.37377.
Crawford, B. The new security dilemma under international economic
interdependence, Millennium 23(1) 1994.
Dunne, T. and N. Wheeler We the peoples: Contending discourses of security
in human rights theory and practice, International Relations 18(1) 2004
pp.923.
McInnes, C. HIV/AIDS and security, International Affairs 82(3) 2006
pp.31526.
Rudolph, C. Globalization and security, Security Studies 13(1) 2003 pp.132.
Thomas, N. and W.Tow The utility of human security: sovereignty and
humanitarian intervention, Security Dialogue 33(2) 2002 pp.17792.
57
Works cited
J. Vincent, Grotius, human rights and intervention, in H. Bull, B. Kingsbury
and A. Roberts (eds), Hugo Grotius and International Relations (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990), p.255.
A. Pollis and P. Schwab, Human rights: a western construct with limited
applicability, in Pollis and Schwab (eds) Human rights: cultural and
ideological perspectives (New York: Praeger, 1979, p.14.
J. Donnelly, Universal human rights in theory and practice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1989), p.114.
A. E. Mayer, Islam and human rights (London: Pinter, 1995), pp.98100.
Garret Gong, The standard of civilization in international society (Oxford:
Clarendon 1984), p.55.
Admantia Pollis
and Peter Schwab
Human rights: a
western construct with
limited applicability
in Pollis and Schwab
(eds) Human rights:
cultural and ideological
perspectives (New York:
Praeger, 1979, p.14.
Jack Donnelly,
Universal human rights
in theory and practice
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1989),
p.114.
59
62
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
define intervention
identify and assess the justification for intervention within
contemporary international society
discuss the current controversies associated with intervention using
evidence from the five case studies surveyed here
compare and contrast the divergent priorities and practices which
follow on from the national, international and human security
approaches to the problem of intervention.
Essential reading
Bain The empire of security and the safety of the people. Chapters 7 and 10.
Economides, Spyros and Berdal, United Nations interventionism.
Chapters 1, 3 and 8.
Tait, A. The legar war: a justification of military action in Iraq, Gonzaga
Journal of International Law 9(1) 2005.
Further reading
Bellamy, A. A responsibility to protect or a Trojan horse? The crisis in Darfur
and humanitarian intervention after Iraq Ethics and International Affairs
19(2) (2005) pp.3154.
Chomsky, N. The new military humanism: lessons from Kosovo. (Monroe, Me.:
Common Courage Press, 1999) first edition [ISBN 1567511767].
Crilly, R. Saving Darfur: everyones favourite war. (London: Reportage Press,
2010) first edition [ISBN 1906702195].
Damrosch, L. and Scheffer, D. Law and force in the new international order.
(Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1992) first edition [ISBN-10: 0813313570].
63
Works cited
Berlin, I. The crooked timber of humanity. (London: John Murray, 1990), p.13.
Bull and Vincent (eds) Intervention in world politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984)
Wight, M. Power politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974), p.191.
Parsons, A. From cold war to hot peace (London: Penguin Books, 1995),
pp.6869.
Shrivastava and Agarwal , Politics of intervention and the Bosnia-Herzegovina
conflict, International Studies 2003; 40: 6984
Rohde, D. Endgame: the betrayal and fall of Srebrenica (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 1997).
A. Roberts, NATOs humanitarian war over Kosovo, Survival 41 (Autumn
1999), p.106.
Mayall, J. Nationalism and international society (Cambridge, 1990)
Musgrave, T. Self determination and national minorities (Oxford, 1997).
Human Rights Watch report (2004), Darfur Destroyed, available at
www.hrw.org/en/node/12133/section/1
64
2
Similar definitions are
employed in Hedley
Bull and John Vincent
(eds) Intervention in
world politics (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1984),
p.1., R. Jackson, The
global covenant: human
conduct in a world of
states (Oxford: OUP,
2000), p.250., and R.J.
Vincent Non-intervention
and international order
(Princeton, N.J.: PUP,
1974), p.13.
Global covenant,
p.251.
Global covenant,
p.252.
Shrivastava and
Agarwal Politics of
intervention and the
Bosnia-Herzegovina
conflict, International
Studies 40, 2003
pp.6984
Read Paul R. Williams, Why the Bosnian arms embargo is illegal, Wall Street JournalEurope, 1995, available online at www.publicinternationallaw.org/publications/editorials/
Bosnian%20Arms%20Embargo.htm and then reflect on the following.
1. Did the arms embargo violate Bosnias right to self-defence?
2. Did it contribute to a balance of power in the Balkans?
3. Was this policy a success or a failure, and on what basis?
In 1995, however, international involvement began to change and
was increasingly determined by the national security requirements of
the fledgling state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Crucial to this development
was international repugnance towards the growing evidence of mostly
Serbian atrocities. Most notorious of these was the so-called Srebrenica
massacre of July 1995 when several thousand Bosniak men and boys were
murdered after what had hitherto been a UN safe haven in the Yugoslav
wars of secession fell to Serbian forces under the command of general
Ratko Mladic.8 In August 1995 a transformation from UN peacekeeping to
NATO peace enforcement took place following a request for assistance by
the Bosnian government. So began Operation Deliberate Force, a NATO air
campaign to undermine Serbian military capability within Bosnia territory.
Following on from this, NATO made it clear that there would be no
partition of the Bosnian state. NATO, and especially American, involvement
altered the military situation by changing the strategic calculations of the
warring factions. As a result, the governments of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Serbia along with the various militias involved in the actual
fighting were persuaded to commit themselves to an American-brokered
settlement: the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (Dayton agreement) was signed in December 1995 by the
presidents of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of
Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia).9
The so-called Dayton agreement stipulated that in future the signatories
would conduct their relations in accordance with the principles set forth
in the United Nations Charter, as well as the Helsinki Final Act and other
documents of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
70
David Rohde,
Endgame: the betrayal
and fall of Srebrenica
(New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 1997).
www1.umn.edu/
humanrts/icty/dayton/
daytonframework.html
They were required to fully respect the sovereign equality of each other,
to settle disputes by peaceful means, and to refrain from any action,
by threat or use of force or otherwise, against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina or any other State. It
also committed them to comply fully with provisions concerning human
rights and particularly the protection of refugees and displaced persons.
As a result of Dayton, the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SerbiaMontenegro) and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize[d]
each other as sovereign independent States within their international
borders. This agreement provided a novel framework for the maintenance
of a unified and independent Bosnian state consisting of two distinct
entities: the Moslem-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with 51
per cent of the territory, and the Republika Srpska with 49 per cent.10 The
Dayton agreement was backed by an international Implementation Force
(IFOR) initially composed of some 60,000 troops under a US commander,
including an all-important US contingent of some 20,000 troops and also
Russian troops. Thus the final outcome of international and specifically
NATO intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina was to guarantee the national
security of this Yugoslav successor state.
Events in Afghanistan, albeit still ongoing at the time of writing, show
a similar progression from international security to national security
considerations.11 The Taliban government was the subject of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1333 (2000) which followed on from
the terrorist attacks on two American embassies in Africa in 1998. This
resolution called upon the Taliban to give Osama bin Laden to the United
States or a third country so that he could stand trial for his part in these
atrocities. The Taliban government was threatened with trade sanctions
and the freezing of all its assets abroad if it failed to comply. Resolution
1333 (2000) did not authorise the use of force against the country but
it nevertheless discloses a prior history of international security concern
with regard to the Talibans role in aiding and abetting terrorist activity.
The initial American-led intervention in Afghanistan followed on from
the September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. Officially, the
purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish
the Taliban government of Afghanistan which had provided support and
protection to al-Qaeda.
Very quickly, a national security dimension began to emerge. Already by
the end of September 2001, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia
had withdrawn their recognition of the Taliban government, which left
Pakistan the only state that still recognised Taliban rule in Afghanistan
as legitimate. This development was significant because if the Taliban
are not the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then Afghani national
security is not subverted and may even be supported by overthrowing
the Taliban. This rationale explains why local Afghan forces opposed to
the Taliban such as the Afghan Northern Alliance played a vital role in
the Americanled effort to overthrow the Taliban and replace it with a
new Afghan government. In anticipation of this political change, Afghan
political leaders met in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001 to agree new
leadership structures. Under the so-called Bonn agreement they formed an
interim Transitional Administration and named Hamid Karzai chairman
of an Afghani governing committee. A meeting of local Afghani leaders
(the Loya Jirga of 19 June 2002) appointed Karzai interim president of
the Afghan Transitional Administration. Karzai was subsequently reelected President of Afghanistan in both the 2004 and 2009 presidential
elections.12
10
Global covenant,
p.272.
11
For an overview of the
sequence of events in
Afghanistan since 2001,
see http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/2001-present_
war_in_Afghanistan
12
71
13
www.rferl.org/
featuresarticle/2006/
09/9d5c90e1-de6e4def-a053-9ba2f0aa
4747.html/
14
www.nato.int/issues/
afghanistan/index.html
Activity
Read the International Crisis Group 2006 report Countering Afghanistans insurgency:
no quick fixes available online at www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_
asia/123_countering_afghanistans_insurgency.pdf and then reflect on the following.
1. How does the report define the threat of counter-insurgency?
2. How does the report describe the process of nation-building?
3. Do you agree with the reports conclusion that Afghani national security requires both
counter-insurgency and nation-building?
4. In your opinion, did intervention strengthen or undermine Afghanistans national
security?
15
A. Roberts, NATOs
humanitarian war
over Kosovo, Survival 41
(Autumn 1999), p.106.
Global covenant
p.279.
16
17
18
For a description of
the situation in Kosovo
prior to and during the
NATO intervention, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Kosovo_War.
19
For a description of
Ibrahim Rugovas role
in Kosovo, see http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ibrahim_Rugova.
20
73
74
Global covenant
p.279.
21
22
For an overview of
the security situation
confronting minorities
9that is non-Albanians)
in Kosovo, see www.
economist.com/world/
europe/displaystory.
cfm?story_id=8116643
Activity
Read the executive summary of the Independent Commission on Kosovo: The Kosovo
Report (2000) available online at www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/thekosovoreport.
htm and then answer the following questions.
1. Why does the Independent Commission on Kosovo conclude that NATO military
intervention in Kosovo was illegal but legitimate?
2. Do you agree with this conclusion?
3. If the Independent Commission on Kosovo is correct, then what are the implications
for human security?
The eventual peace terms were based on principles agreed by members
of the G7 leading industrial nations plus Russia. The agreement was
confirmed and sanctioned by UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).
These conditions were basically the same as those of Rambouillet: an
immediate end of hostilities and repression in Kosovo, verified withdrawal
of Yugoslav forces from the province, demilitarisation of the KLA, the
presence of an international security force in Kosovo with Chapter 7
authorisation, return of all refugees and displaced persons, and the
creation of an interim UN civil administration that would re-create an
autonomous regime in Kosovo.
The NATO member states, and especially the United States and the United
Kingdom who led the initiative, evidently considered this outcome as a
vindication of their intervention. As then British Foreign Secretary, Robin
Cook, put it: we have tried repeatedly right up to the last minute
to find a way to halt the repression of Kosovo Albanians through
negotiation We were left with no other way of preventing the present
humanitarian crisis from becoming a catastrophe, than by taking military
action to limit the capacity of Miloevis army to repress the Kosovo
Albanians.23 Other states took a rather different view. As then Russian
President Boris Yeltsin remarked: Russia is deeply upset by NATOs
military action against sovereign Yugoslavia, which is nothing less than
open aggression.24 In a similar vein, Russias ambassador to London at the
time pointed out that breaking international law leads to catastrophes
Nothing in the UN charter or the North Atlantic treaty can justify taking
military action against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.25
NATO involvement in Kosovo is controversial because the UN Charter does
not formally recognise gross human rights violations per se as a criterion
for intervention. To recall, the only grounds for intervention in Chapter
7 of the UN Charter are self-defence (Article 59) and international peace
and security (Article 42). Although the Security Council characterised
the crisis in Kosovo as a threat to international peace and security in
Resolutions 760 (1998) and 1199 (1998), it stopped short of authorising
all necessary means (i.e. force) to compel Yugoslav compliance. Moreover,
the final outcome of NATO intervention in Kosovo was the creation of a de
facto international protectorate. This development contradicts the main
thrust of international society since 1945, which has been characterised
by the repudiation of all forms of colonialism and trusteeship in favour of
the self-determination of peoples. The question thus arises whether and
to what extent NATOs intervention in Kosovo heralds a return to earlier
practices of gun boat diplomacy and neo-colonialism in which the rights
of sovereignty and self-determination can be revoked by the great powers
in those circumstances where the government in question fails to satisfy
agreed standards of civilisation. The subsequent American strategy of preemption and unilateral action associated with the presidency of George W.
23
As quoted in R.
Jackson The global
covenant: human
conduct in a world of
states (OUP, 2000),
p.282.
24
Ibid, p.282
25
Ibid, p.282
75
Bush would appear to confirm this development. That at least has been the
claim put forward by critics of the 2003 American-led intervention in Iraq
and the subsequent American policy of regime change.
Activity
Read Bain Chapter 10 and Economides and Berdal Chapters 3 and 8 and then answer
the following questions.
1. Does the necessity of safeguarding national security justify pre-emptive intervention
of the sort that occurred in Iraq in 2003?
2. If intervention occurs with the consent of the target state as it did in Bosnia, is it
really intervention?
3. Should international society intervene to stop gross human rights violations like the
ethnic cleansing which took place in Kosovo during 1999?
4. If a sovereign state is incapable of providing security for its people, should it be
replaced by an international trusteeship or protectorate as arguably happened with
respect to Kosovo?
26
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/3496731.stm
27
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/8659037.stm
28
www.hrw.org/en/
news/2010/07/13/
sudan-icc-warrant-albashir-genocide
29
http://edition.cnn.
com/2008/WORLD/
africa/04/22/darfur.
holmes/index.
html?eref=rss_
topstories
30
Human Rights Watch
report (2004), Darfur
Destroyed, available
at www.hrw.org/en/
node/12133/section/1
31
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/4978668.stm
32
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/4978668.stm
33
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/8659037.stm
34
http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/world/
africa/8659037.stm
35
www.sudantribune.
com/spip.
php?article35667
36
www.ushmm.org/
genocide/take_action/
atrisk/region/sudan
37
39
www.un.org/apps/
news/story.asp?NewsID
=25619&Cr=darfur&
Cr1=
40
www.hrw.org/en/
news/2010/07/19/
un-strengthen-civilianprotection-darfur
41
www.hrw.org/en/
news/2010/07/19/
un-strengthen-civilianprotection-darfur
42
www.hrw.org/en/
news/2010/07/19/
un-strengthen-civilianprotection-darfur
What do events in Darfur tell us about the norm of intervention postR2P? Are international actors and especially the great powers fulfilling
their responsibility to protect? Sadly, the evidence would suggest that
the same power-political calculations which complicated international
intervention before R2P continue to hamper the path towards human
security after R2P. Military intervention for human security is only likely in
those circumstances where a great power (e.g., United States) or group of
states (NATO, EU, etc.) are prepared to accept the significant political and
military risks involved. Insofar as Darfur is concerned, the United States
77
was hesitant about becoming involved for fear that such actions might
jeopardise the support of the Sudanese government in the war on terror.43
Meanwhile, the EU was already overstretched in Macedonia, Kosovo,
Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo and therefore
did not have sufficient resources to commit to Darfur.44 Russia and
China remain ill-disposed towards intervention in general because of the
potential implications for Chechnya and Tibet respectively. Finally, a prior
concern for the conflict of longer duration in South Sudan has unavoidably
directed international action away from Darfur. It remains to be seen
whether the outcome of the South Sudanese independence referendum in
January 2011 will improve or undermine human security in Darfur.
Activity
Read De Waal, A. (2007) Darfur and the failure of the responsibility to Protect,
International Affairs, 83 (6): 10391054, and Enough (2010) report Neglecting Darfur,
available online at www.enoughproject.org/publications/neglecting-darfur. Then consider
the following.
1. Is the pursuit of R2P in Darfur a serious international goal?
2. Is it an obtainable ideal? Why or why not?
78
43
Williams, P. and
Bellamy, A. (2005) The
responsibility to protect
and the crisis in Darfur,
Security Dialogue 36 (1),
pp.3738.
44
END OF PAPER
79
Notes
80
liberal theory, the state cannot pose a threat to the people because it is a
creation of the people. In practice, however, security of the state does not
always translate into security of the people. There are many states which
do not have the capacity to protect their people while others directly and
purposefully threaten their people for political, economic or ideological
reasons.
You should then go on to assess whether or not such a view of security
may reasonably be applied to circumstances in sub-Saharan Africa.
Crucially, of course, the states of sub-Saharan Africa are among the poorest
and worse governed in the world hence the use of terms such as weak,
failed or even quasi states. State institutions here are often corrupt,
weak or non-existent (read the failed states index report cited in Chapter
3 of the subject guide) and as a result the state is not capable of providing
security for its people and may even threaten them. Thus, M. Ayoob in
his seminal 1991 article listed under the further readings for Chapter 3 of
the subject guide concludes that the security problem of the Third World
cannot be understood from the classic liberal perspective. Human security
aims to fill precisely this gap identified by Ayoob.
There are many different ways to answer this question. You may agree
with Ayoobs conclusions (in which case you should explain why)
and argue that human security is a useful alternative to state-centred
approaches in sub-Saharan Africa. Or you may agree with Ayoob but
remain sceptical of human security as a convincing alternative and propose
another security reference (e.g., societal security, economic security,
environmental security or some combination thereof). You might even
argue that liberal state-centred approaches nevertheless remain the most
efficacious as a basis for criticism and reform of weak or corrupt regimes.
The best answers will disclose a good knowledge of both the required
and the relevant further readings, and on this basis be able to combine
conceptual with empirical analysis.
4. Compare the justification for intervention in any two of the
following: the First Gulf War, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Darfur.
Reading for this question
This question draws upon the material discussed in Chapters 5 and 8 of
the subject guide and in Chapters 1, 3 and 8 of the required Economides
and Berdal text. It asks you to consider the justification for intervention
and thus the focus of your answer should be on evaluating the political
purpose and legality of these actions rather than summarising what
happened per se. Remember, the Examiners are looking for analysis here,
and not historical description.
Approaching this question
Within the literature on intervention, the first Gulf War is generally
portrayed as intervention for international peace and security consistent
with the United Nations Charter. In contrast, intervention in Kosovo is
usually described as an overwhelming humanitarian necessity in the face
of widespread ethnic cleansing of the Albanian population by Serbian
forces. Similarly, intervention in Darfur is frequently referenced to the
doctrine of the responsibility to protect. The Afghan intervention is less
clear cut it began as a subject of international security under UN Security
Council Resolution 1333 (2000) but ultimately the officially recognised
post-Taliban government of Afghanistan requested international assistance
(2006) in defence of its sovereignty.
83
The best answers will establish clear criteria for justification; for example,
what constitutes international peace and security, national security and
human security in this context, and explain how it applies to two of the
cases listed in the question. This evaluation may or may not agree with the
dominant view of the literature.
5. Can China reasonably be described as a would-be
hegemon?
Reading for this question
This question draws on the material and required readings discussed in
Chapter 5 of the subject guide, Buzan Chapter 5 and, to a lesser extent,
also Hough Chapter 2. You may also find it useful to refer to the David
Hendrickson article listed in the activity on p.46 of the subject guide. The
salient facts with respect to China are not specifically addressed in either
the subject guide or the required readings, but they should be familiar to
you provided that you have remained abreast of current developments in
international relations (i.e., by reading some of the periodicals cited as
additional resources in the subject guide).
Approaching this question
You should begin by explaining the term hegemon in the context of
current Chinese power. A hegemon is a state with such a preponderance
of power that it is able to lay down the law to all other members of
international society. In the post-Cold War period, China has often
been described as a potential hegemon because of its geographic size,
population, geostrategic location, and growing economic strength.
Describing China in these terms, however, is only part of what is required.
Examiners will also be looking for an evaluation of whether or not such a
description is justifiable and on what basis.
The best answers will acknowledge that such an evaluation can only be
made in terms of a specific balance of power context. It may, for instance,
be reasonable to conclude that China is already a regional hegemon in
South East Asia but is not likely to become a global hegemon anytime
soon due to the continued preponderance of the United States on the
world stage. Irrespective of the specific argument provided, first-class
answers should demonstrate a nuanced understanding and application of
the concepts hegemony, balance of power and international society, as
well as national and international security, and an ability to relate these to
empirical examples.
6. What is the relationship between military threat and
securitisation in the global war on terror?
Reading for this question
This question draws upon the material discussed in Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5
of the subject guide and in Buzan Chapter 7 and Hough Chapters 2 and 3.
Approaching this question
This question asks you to characterise the relationship between military
threat and securitisation drawing upon evidence related to the global
war on terror. To begin, you will need to explain what is meant by the
global war on terror. The global war on terror is a term coined by former
President George W. Bush both to justify and to characterise United States
foreign policy following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The global war on
terror has thus come to be associated with a range of policies including
84
85
people. Thus the interests of a state and its population should coincide.
You may even go so far as to suggest that the circumstances pertaining
in liberal democracies such as the member states of the European Union,
Canada, Australia, the United States and Japan, among others, proves the
validity of these theoretical claims.
If you argue against such linkage, then you may wish to focus more on
circumstances elsewhere. There are many other states around the world
which either do not have the capacity to protect their people (e.g., failed
states such as Sierra Leone) or directly and purposefully threaten their
people (e.g., totalitarian states like North Korea) for political, economic
or ideological reasons. These states demonstrate that the assumptions of
liberal theory should not be assumed to apply everywhere. It is precisely
this reality which underscores the new responsibility to protect doctrine
and explains the support it has received from states.
Irrespective of the view taken, a first-class essay answer will locate these
debates in the context of larger developments in international relations.
This question thus underscores the importance of your reading beyond
the required syllabus and making an effort to engage with current
international developments (by reading the various academic journals
listed in the subject guide as well as news publications like the Economist
or the International Herald Tribune).
10. Do you agree with Barry Buzans analysis of nuclearn
deterrence as a defence dilemma?
Reading for this question
This question draws on the material and required readings discussed
in Chapter 3 of the subject guide. The so-called defence dilemma was
proposed by Barry Buzan in Chapter 6 of People, states and fear.
Approaching this question
You will need to begin by explaining the defence dilemma. As defined
by Buzan, the defence dilemma refers to a potential problem in the
relationship between national security and military power. National
security includes all those policies and practices directed both within and
beyond the state which have as their purpose the continued survival of the
state and, by extension, the well-being of its population. Military power
is the use of armed force (land, naval and air) to protect the state from
external threats and as such is one aspect of national security. It is usually
assumed that military power positively correlates with national security.
Buzan challenges this idea by pointing out various ways in which the two
may fail to coincide. Nuclear deterrence appears an obvious choice here
due to the irony of mutually assured destruction.
The best answers will do more than simply recapitulate some or all of
Buzans argument. The Examiners will be looking for an assessment of
Buzan. For example, you might argue that although nuclear deterrence
itself is a convincing example of a defence dilemma, its exceptional nature
calls into question the more general applicability of the concept. Such an
answer reveals not only an understanding of Buzan but also that ability
for independent, critical analysis which is most prized by the Examiners.
This is an important reminder that you should always incorporate your
own opinions and ideas into your exam answers. As I tell my internal LSE
students, if I wanted to know what Buzan or any other academic thinks on
a given topic I can easily read their books and articles. I read your essays
and exam answers because I want to know about your own informed
ideas.
87
identity. You will need to explain whether or not, and on what basis, you
agree with this perspective.
If you agree with the view that identity should be a referent object of
security, you might reflect on the role of identity politics as a source of or
threat to security. As I argue in my 2005 book, identity is constitutive of
political community and thus both security and insecurity. Minorities are
political outsiders precisely because their identities do not fit the criteria
defining membership within the political community on whose territory
they reside. As a result, the institutions of the state are not directed at
preserving and promoting minority identity and may even be hostile
towards it. Indeed, in circumstances of hostility, it is often claimed that
the existence of alternative identities will be perceived as a threat to
the continued survival of the shared (majority) identity and policies of
discrimination, assimilation, persecution, ghettoisation, forced expulsion
and even genocide towards minorities may follow on from it. You would
then need to consider an empirical example or two in support of this
claim.
If you disagree with this view, you might instead argue that identity only
becomes significant in those circumstances where the material interests
of the dominant (majority) group are threatened, for example when
resources are scarce or when the state is under threat from an external
aggressor. You would then need to consider an empirical example or two
in support of this claim. On this basis you might conclude that identity per
se is not directly relevant to security analyses.
89
Notes
90