Research Journal of International Studies

ISSN: 1453-212X Issue 1 (2012)

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.eurojournals.com/international_studies.htm

Concept of Security in the Theoretical Approaches

Fakhreddin Soltani
Post-Doc Researcher, School of History, Politics, and Strategic Studies (SOHPASS)
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: fakhreddinsoltany@gmail.com
Mohammad Agus Yusoff
Assoc. Prof, School of History, Politics, and Strategic Studies (SOHPASS)
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: agus@ukm.my
Abstract
Among others, Wolfers idea on concept of security achieved the most popularity among
political scientists. The core assumption of his idea is lack of threat and fear against values
of a nation. But the assumption of the threat and fear does not carry the same meaning in
the main theoretical approaches. This article is to explain the main approaches of
rationalism, reflectivism and constructivism and their interpretation on concept of security

keywords: Rationalism, Reflectivism, Constructivism, Security

1. Introduction
Concept of security has been always at the centre of attentions in understanding international relations.
Different definitions are provided for the concept according to the variety of approaches. Among the
definitions, Wolfers idea on concept of security achieved the most popularity among political
scientists (Baylis 2001). He argues that the numerous elements such as national characters, preferences,
and prejudices shape overall understanding out of concept of security. But what is the central to
understand the concept is the lack of threat and fear against the values of a nation (Wolfers 1952). But
according to different theoretical approaches in studying international relations, the lack of threat
against the values of nations is interpreted differently.
The mentioned complexity caused developing of the concepts such as security and insecurity
dilemma, value dilemma, collective security, and security regimes that are to interpret and solve the
problem of security (Soltani, Jayum, and Zaid 2010).This article is to explain the main theoretical
approaches on the concept of security. For this purpose, three main approaches on the concept of
security were included, namely rationalism, reflectivism, and constructivism. These approaches have
shaped the nations security approaches and perceptions on the concept of security.

2. Rationalism
Rationalism is based on positivism and it argues that social and political phenomena can be explained
in a way that scientists use for explaining natural world, whereby they argue that facts and values are
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

two separated things. Therefore, the regularities of the social phenomena can be uncovered by
empirical validation and falsification. Thus, rationalists argue that actors and concepts are exogenously
given, and the actors act in a pre-given world according to the demands of instrumental reason
(Zehfuss, Smith et al. 2002). There are two rationalist theories, namely realism and liberalism.
In particular, realism was the dominant approach used in analyzing the security issues of the
U.S.A and U.S.S.R during the Cold War. Realism was a response to the liberal idealism of 1920s and
1930s (Dunne and schmidt 2001). There are different kinds of realism; these include classical realism
that was dominant until the first decades of the twentieth century, whereas modern realism rose in 1939
and was dominant until 1979, and neo-realism which began in 1979. Conceptually, realism can be
categorised into different types of historical realism and with Machiavelli and Carr as the main
thinkers, whereas structural realism also has several major thinkers such as Thucydides, Morgenthau,
Waltz (Dunne and schmidt 2001). All the realist thinkers adapt the main concepts of realism and there
is also a compromise on their meaning; however, the differences between them are about the ways in
which the principles of realism are followed and the way security is provided.
In his famous book entitled Twenty years crisis, 1936-1946, historical realist, Carr believed
that that utopian thinking was basis of collective security after World War I which leaded to World
War II. According to Carr the optimism of collective security made the countries to ignore principle of
self-help and in result threatened the security of many countries (Carr 1946). Therefore, league of
nations which was base on collective security had its root in misinterpretation of major power
aspirations (Griffits 1999). In other words, the main reason of World War II was moving from realist
approach of interpreting security of the states towards liberal interpretation. According to realist
approach, states cannot trust others but themselves in term of security issues. According to Herz
Security dilemma is the reason realists emphasize on to justify the lack of trustiness among states.
Security dilemma is a situation in which increase in security of a states leads to feeling of insecurity for
others (1951).
Structural realism was a response to the challenges created by interdependence theory. It
attempted to cover the weaknesses of historical realism. Some thinkers, such as Robert Gilpin and
Stephan Krasner, emphasized on the roles of the states under the condition in which extra national
actors seemed to challenge their primacy (Krasner 1976; Gilpin 2001). Meanwhile, theories such as
Regime theory and hegemonic stability theory were designed to answer these challenges against the
classical realism. These theories insist that the existing of hegemony that supports international
regimes is the main cause for security in the political world.
The theorists of structuralism can be divided into two main groups. The first group includes
Thucydides and Morgenthau (Burchill and Linklater 1996), who believe that power-politics is the main
law for human behaviour. Among others, the main cause of war and insecurity for Thucydides is the
fear that brings the feeling of insecurity. For him, the fundamental cause of the Peloponnesian War
rooted in the rise of Athens and the fear or the feeling of insecurity that had been caused in Sparta
(Zakaria winter 1992/93). On the contrary, Morgenthau argued that the states wishes to achieve and
promote power had its roots in the nature of human kind; in other words, war was the result of the
forces that are inherent in human nature (Morgenthau 1972).
Second group, just like the first one, believes that the main goals of the foreign policy of states
are power and security. Nonetheless, the second group can be divided into two main sub-groups,
namely the concepts of security and power, which include offensive and defensive. In more specific,
the defensive ones pay attention on security more than power, whereas offensive realists believe that
power is more important than security, even if achieving it will threaten the security of state. Waltz
published two books entitled, Man, the state, and War, and Theory of International Politics. In the
first book, he emphasized on three images in analyzing the cause of war in the international politics;
these include human nature, the nature of states, and the anarchical environment in which all states coexist without any central government or authority (Waltz 1959). In this book, he also reviewed the
main historical ideas on the causes of war and security.
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

The second book, i.e. the Theory of International Politics is the most influential one in the
international politics since 1979. This book discusses about the theoretical approaches of the
international politics, particularly the condition of world affairs for the U.S.A and Soviet Union
(U.S.S.R) after World War II. The writer believes that in the self-help system, the priority of each state
is to provide the means of protecting itself against others. Like other realists, Waltz also emphasizes
that survival is a vital interest of all states; hence, peace and stability will continue if they feel secure
against others. Meanwhile, balance of power is the sole way that provides peace and stability in the
world and among the different kinds of balance of power, the most stable one is the balance of power
based on the two super powers. Therefore, the most stable international system is the one in which two
super-powers maintain the balance of power and feel secure against each other. The writer also
concluded that the Cold War era was the most stable era with the least great wars (Waltz 1979).
The main idea of Waltzs defensive realism is rejected by offensive realists who believe that the
feeling of security against enemy is not enough to provide survival for all the states in the anarchical
system. The main thinker of the offensive realism is John Mearshiemer. His book, The Tragedy of
Great Powers, introduces anarchy as the force that makes states increase their power in order to
survive under the conditions of self-help (1990). This is why all the states look for the opportunities to
weaken their enemies, because doing so will increase in their self power (Mearshiemer 1990).
Moreover, increasing power is stated as the best way to provide security; in other words, survival is the
main cause of offensive behaviour and there is no feeling of security against other states in the
international system. Thus, the balance of power cannot provide the security and the sole way is
increasing power (Mearshiemer 2001). It can be said that the best condition to great power is to
achieve a hegemonic position in which it can provide security in the best way for itself.
It is important to note that all realists agree on certain principles. Among others, the realists
emphasize on the validity of power-politics and they believe that security and power are perpetual
necessity of the relationships among sovereign states. On the basis of realism, there are perpetual
competitions in achieving power and security among sovereign states. Sovereignty, anarchy, and
security dilemma are the key concepts in realism. Meanwhile, change and morality are the peripheral
concepts for realists. Statism is the main character of the international system, whereby states are the
determining actors in the international politics because they provide both security and power. Timeless
principles, which include anarchy, survival, and self-help, are dominant in the relations among
sovereign states (Waltz 1979).
On the basis of realism, the international system is an anarchical system in which states do not
trust each other. Under mistrusting condition, states behave according to the principle of self-help. In
other words, states are the sole actors that can play influential role in providing security without relying
on other states. In fact, states do not rely on other states because in the security issue, they do not trust
each other. Meanwhile, realists emphasize on organizing principle, anarchy as the sole possible
principle to form the relationships among states (Lake 2001), and that in the anarchical system, no one
can rely on others for security because they are afraid of cheating. The increase in the power of any
country refers to that particular countrys security, which decreases the security of other countries
because it changes the balance of power among them. In the realist approach, the balance of power is
the best way to provide security of all sides based on the self-help principle.
In realism, the explanation given on the ways of providing security is the point that liberalism
rejects. Since the 18th century, liberalism has extremely influenced the studies on international politics.
On the contrary to the realists, liberals see the relationship among the states as a potential realm of
progress and purposive change (Griffits 1999). In addition, they also believe that the state ought to be
constrained from acting in ways that undermine freedom. Liberalism emphasizes that despite the
difficulties involved in replacing these constraints at the international level, they must be established in
order to promote among, as well as within, sovereign states. In other words, liberals believe that the
change in possible relations among the states can lead to trust in each other in certain conditions
(Griffits 1999).
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

Gradually, liberals modified some core ideas of liberalism because of its inability to find a
proper explanation for events during the Cold War. Hence, the ideas of Realism were challenged by
some new approaches of liberalism. The most important writers who had modified liberalism are
Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane. In particular, Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane in their common book
entitled, Power and Interdependence believe that new actors are as important as states for the
analysis of the international politics, but their statement does not mean that they believe in the
disappearance of international conflicts. However, they believe that conflicts and security issues will
take a new form and they may even be more in number (Keohane & Nye, 2001).
In addition, they also describe the new era as the interdependence era in which traditional
approaches are not able to provide a proper explanation for the conflicts and security issues. According
to them, both sensitivity and vulnerability are the main concepts that must be emphasized in order
to understand the conditions of interdependence era (Keohane & Nye, 2001). Meanwhile, the concept
of vulnerability is about the ability of the states to make effective adjustments to the changes that occur
over a period of time; the concept of sensitivity is about the ability of the states to respond to the
changes. In other words, the sensitivity of the states reveals how the changes in one country or in the
international system will bring costly changes in another country, as well as how great the effects of
the changes are (Keohane & Nye, 2001). Briefly, Keohane and Nye (2001) emphasized on complex
interdependence as a new condition of the international relations that are extremely different from what
the realists emphasize.
However, Keohane and Nye (2001) developed some parts of their ideas in their next books.
Nye argues that the resources of power are changed in the new ages. Soft power is the concept that he
introduced and used against the concept of hard power. In more specific, soft power is more than
persuasion or more to convincing people by arguments. It is the ability of enticing and attracting
people to imitation and acquiescence. Nonetheless, the problem with soft power is that it does not
belong to and controllable for the government in the same degree that hard power does. He further
argues that democracy, listening to others in the international institutions and promoting peace and
human rights in foreign policy form the basis of the American soft power (Nye, Winter 2002-2003).
Nye (2004) characterizes the types of power during the different periods of the history. Among
other, gold bullion, colonial trade, mercenary armies and dynastic ties for Spain in the sixteenth
century; trade, capital markets, navy population, rural industry, public administration, army and culture
for the Netherlands and France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; industry, political
cohesion, finance and credit, navy, liberal norms and island location that were easy to defend for
Britain in the nineteenth century; economic scale, scientific and technical leaderships, location, military
forces and alliances, universalistic culture and liberal international regimes as the soft power for the
United States in the twentieth century and finally, technological leadership, military and economic
scale, soft power and hub of transnational communications also for the United States in the twenty first
century (Nye, 2004) have been argued as the elements of power.
In his article entitled, The decline of the Americans soft power, Nye also argued that the
United States was going to lose its soft power. The Americans need to change their attitude at home for
a better understanding of how the U.S policies appear to others because soft power is the cheapest way
to provide security. For this, he states that American preponderance will last well in to this century,
but only if the United States learns to use power wisely (Nye, Winter 2002-2003). On the basis of his
theory, soft power in the information age is therefore the best and cheapest way to provide security.
Keohane developed his ideas differently from Nye. His book, After Hegemony: Cooperation
and discord in the world political economy (1984) is the basis of modified structural realism or
neoliberal institutionalism. His theory is about the functional utility of international regimes, in which
states follow their long-term rational self-interest through cooperation despite the shifts in the balance
of power. He argues that the continuity of institutionalized co-operations among states does not depend
on the existence of the hegemonic conditions that shape regimes-principles, rules, norms around which
states expectations and behaviour converge in a given issue area (Keohane, 1984).
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

10

Keohane argues that actors or states follow their interests under bounded rationality that will
value the facilities of co-operation provided by regimes. Regimes will then help governments to reduce
the negative effects of change in the future. Among other, they may seek to join regimes to bind those
future administrations which are looking for change (Keohane, 1984). Great powers and especially
hegemony, on the basis of his arguments, causes international regimes to reduce the prices of cooperation and avoid conflict. However, regimes are very expensive to be formed or changed by
governments after declining hegemony. Therefore, new hegemony will maintain exciting regimes. In
this way, hegemony will make changes difficult for its successor. For instance, it will help hegemony
to provide security for itself in the future with the least expenses. This is the logic of forming regimes
such as NAFTA, CTBT, and NPT by hegemony.
Liberalism is a theory about state as compared to realism that seeks to adapt the concepts of
security and justice. Liberalism believes that human kind likes co-operation and progress. Unlike what
realists believe, violence and war do not have their root in the nature of human kind but the existence
of corrupt institutions and the lack of appropriate facilities lead to selfish behaviour among the states
(Dunne 2001). Thus, liberalism believes that nations are able to achieve peace and emphasizes on
democracy and creating good states and international organizations, in which the world will finally be
led into more peaceful one. In addition, liberalism believes in the good nature of human kind and
concludes that states are group of people that create it. Therefore, like human kind, states are able to
achieve peace and security through co-operation. It is the point that realists reject because they believe
co-operation is rather fragile (Waltz 1979).

3. Reflectivism
The assumptions of rationalism were criticized by many reflectivists in the mid 1980s. The central
point of attack was the assumption of facts whereby rationalism believes it as something that sits out
the world and waits to be discovered. Meanwhile, reflectivism argues that rationalism ignores
important aspects of international politics by advocating positivist conception of social science and
using it to discover facts through gold standard ways of studying. Reflectivism describes the
rationalist theorizing as a problem solving theorizing that has a role in solving specific puzzles but
ignoring important aspects of international politics, such as morality and ideas (Kurki 2008).
Moreover, reflectivism argues that this ignoring is a result of supposing objects of study, such as state
and international system as given and timeless ones. Reflectivism believes that there is no single fact to
be discovered.
The Marxism view of international politics is different from Realism and Liberalism in nature.
On the contrary to Realism and Liberalism that believe states act according to their national interests
without paying attention to their identity and nature, the Marxist theories tend to discover the hidden
truth of the international politics and believe that any attempt to understand world politics must be
based on a broader understanding of the dominant structures of world, i.e. global capitalism. The
Marxist theories believe that the social world needs to be studied as a whole, whereas dividing it into
different fields of study is not helpful (Hobden & Jones, 2001). It is important to note that there are
different Marxist approaches in the international politics, and these include world-system theory,
Gramscianism, critical theory, and new Marxism.
The origins of the world-system theory can be traced back to the Marxist thinkers critique of
imperialism, such as Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, Hilferding, and Lenin, i.e. at the start of the
twentieth century (Hobden & Jones, 2001). The most well-known feature of the world-system theory in
the contemporary era is Immanuel Wallerstein who defines the world system as a social system with
boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. In addition, he also argues
that the history has experienced two kinds of the world system which include world empires and
world economies. The main distinction between the two systems lies in the way of the resources
distribution. In the world empire system, the central power decides on how to distribute the sources
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

11

from the peripheral area to the core area, but there are multiple competing centres of power in the
world-economy system (Wallerstein, 1976). Meanwhile, the existence of security in the world-system
theory is based on the continuity of relations between the peripheral areas and the core areas. In other
words, a change in the way of distributing resources is supposed as a threat to security of the system.
Gramscianism, which emerged from the ideas of Marxist thinker named Antonio Gramsci, is
another Marxist approach. His study in the international political economy marked the beginning of the
Critical Theory as the most influential Marxist theory of the international relations. Hegemony is the
main concept embraced in Gramscianism and it refers to the predominance of one social class over the
others and it includes two tools of dominating, namely power and consent (Hobden & Jones, 2001).
The combination of power and consent provides security of the hegemony. In other words, hegemony
makes other groups or people to suppose values, ideologies, and interests of hegemony as their own
values, ideologies, and interests. It is crucial to note that Gramscianism is the basis of the critical
theory, as the most influential Marxist approach in the international relations.
The critical theory, whose roots lie in Gramscianism, is the most influential Marxist theory of
the international relations. Thinkers such as Robert Cox and Andrew Linklater used the concept of
hegemony in the Gramsci work to explain international politics. Cox argues that theories are shaped for
a purpose and in favour of someone (Cox 1981). This also means that as reality changes, old concepts
have to be shaped or rejected on the basis of the new reality; hence, Cold War ideological adversaries
of the United States and Soviet Union shaped the main concepts of that particular period (Cox 1981).
Therefore, the realist concepts such as security, anarchy, and survival are the reflections of conditions
of their time. The critical theory has concentrated on the questions related to culture, bureaucracy, and
social basis of international politics. The core concepts that they use are rationality, and
emancipation(Hobden & Jones, 2001).
The critical theory believes that the rationality of the actors in choosing the strategies of action
is a result of non-historical explanation of realists. On the basis of the critical theory, the concepts such
as anarchy, self-help and survival have different meanings for different people and in different
conditions. Among other, Linklater is the most distinguished thinker who has brought these concepts in
the sphere of international politics. He argues that the real emancipation in relations of states marks the
weakening of sovereign states and the borders among them. In other words, emancipation can be
achieved by the weakening of ethical and moral significance of borders of sovereign states. Linklater
argues that the citizens obligation to a specific system is a result of moral confusion. The division of
men into determined borders of sovereign states has its roots in the absence of determinate
arrangements which could provide a proper substitution for the state system (Linklater December
1980).
The New-Marxism, with its main thinkers such as Bill Warren and Justin Rosenberg, is the
most radical Marxist approach in the field of international politics which was derived from Marxs
ideas (Hobden & Jones, 2001). Rosenberg used the elements of Marxs ideas to criticize the realist
approach of the international relations, arguing that the two core concepts of realist, namely
sovereignty and anarchy, are the features of the capitalist era. Meanwhile, sovereignty which is a tool
of capitalism, separates some parts of the world from the production process, while anarchy resulted of
the capitalist relations which are not necessary circumstances of international relations (Rosenberg
1994). Therefore, the security and insecurity in New-Marxist approach is the condition that has its
roots in the separation of different areas of the world from the process of production and the need of
capitalist system to maintain the separation.

4. Constructivism
The theoretical challenge between rationalism and reflectivism remains in the core of the theoretical
debates of international politics until the beginning of 1990s. Alexander Wendt introduces
constructivism as a strong analyzing way for the events occurring in the world. Constructivism is a
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

12

response to the mainstream approach of rationalism, including realism liberalism, and reflectivism.
Constructivists try to close the methodological and ontological gap between the rationalists and
reflectivists. They believe that practice determines internal norms. Territoriality, security, enemy, and
threat are constructed by practices of agents. Therefore, constructivists argue that rationalists cannot
ignore realities which can be understood through observation (Zupcevic).
Constructivism argues that states define their identities in relationship to other states.
Nonetheless, its analysis is different from realism. In contrast to realism, it believes that the structure is
a result of the social relations such as common knowledge, and interactions more than materialistic
capabilities. Meanwhile, perceptions, expectations and common knowledge form the structure are
determinant factors (Wendt 1999).
Constructivism argues against the principal concepts of realism on security, self-help and
anarchy. On the basis of constructivist ideas, these concepts are institutions that are relatively stable
sets of identities and interests. However, they are codified and derived their meanings on the basis of
norms, formal rule which are based on collective knowledge in the process of actors practices and
socialization. They are cognitive entities that do not exist apart from the actors ideas about world, so
they are nothing but beliefs. On this basis, all the concepts such as security, self-help, and threat are
the institutions that retrieved their meanings under the situation of anarchy. The anarchy, which is a
result of the actors practices that define itself and others (Wendt 1992).
Hence, the meanings of security and other concepts as institutions differ in different situations.
They do not have timeless and unconditional meanings. Actors define them on the basis of the new
situations, while their practices shape their meanings. All the actors practice based on their own
assumption and in conjunction of this practice, they create interaction among them. These practices and
ideas shape the actors behaviour towards others. Hence, the actors behave with different countries or
groups differently. For instance, they define the institutions of enemies and friends, such as the military
advances of British have different meanings from the military advance of Cuba for the United States.
These meanings are dependent on inter-subjective understanding, on their expectations on the
distribution of knowledge (Wendt 1992).
Constructivism, unlike Realism and Liberalism which are the theories of politics, is not a theory
of politics in nature. It is rather a social theory that is applied for international politics. Realism
explains international relations as the responses to the realities that happen in the real world and are
independent from the ideas. Meanwhile, other approaches, such as Marxism, believe that ideas matter
and are more important than the events that happen in the real world because they shape the realities.
On the contrary, Liberalism emphasizes that material and idea are the interests that directly govern the
behaviour of actors in international politics. The mentioned ideas shape their attitude on the concept of
security; for example, realism emphasizes that security is the states first priority and it has to be
provided by the power of the state, whereas liberalism believes that security of the states can be
provided through common interests among the sovereign states. Marxism introduces security as the
condition that the capitalist system creates to protect its survival (Adler September 1997).
Constructivism is the view that attempts to reconcile the mentioned different approaches by the
idea that the events in real world shapes and is shaped by human actions. In other words, both ideas
and real world do matter (Adler September 1997). Constructivism tends to combine different ways of
studying so as to provide a way of understanding social relations in a better way. It has created its
system of concepts and propositions for theorizing about matters of social science (Kubalkova, Onuf et
al. 1998). Constructivists, such as Onuf and Wendt, believe that the mainstream theories of
international politics cannot appropriately explain changes, because in theory, nothing much is
supposed to change. Constructivism is a way of re-describing the world. As compared to the
mainstream theories, constructivism puts people and their activities at the core of the analysis
(Kubalkova, Onuf et al. 1998).
Constructivism challenges important assumptions of both Rationalism and Reflectivism and
attempts to adapt the two approaches in order to establish a new way of explaining, but with a more
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

13

analyzing strength. The most well-known thinkers of constructivism are Kratochwill, Onuf and
Alexander Wendt who believe that there is no unchanging reality of international politics. The reality
of the international politics in Wendts famous words is what states make of it (Wendt 1992). On the
basis of constructivist assumption, all the concepts, such as anarchy, self-help security system,
identities of different countries or groups get their meanings in the process of practicing and
recognizing, norms help agents to define situations. Competitive identities, interests, territory, are the
results of inter-subjective understanding. Meanwhile, concepts such as security are merely matters
of national power, nothing else (Wendt 1992). Constructivism attempted to adapt the importance of
norms and inter-subjective meanings in reflectivism with the existence of a given reality in rationalism.
The most famous article among them was written by Alexander Wendt, with the title, Anarchy
is what states make of it: social construction of power politics in 1992. However, the most influential
work written by Wendt is the Social Theory of International Politics (1999) which is based on his
1992 article. His book places itself as a response to Kenneth Waltzs 1979 book with the title, Theory
of International Politics. In his book, the ideas as the basis of interests and identities are said to be
inter-subjectively constituted (Waltz 1979; Wendt 1992; Wendt 1999). The inter-subjective structures
are very important to Wendt as he believes that they are the ones that form the dominant principles of
international system. He believes that anarchy is what states create based on their ideas and
suppositions, whereas security dilemma and wars are the result of predictions that are made by states.
He further argues that the policies of reciprocal trust can create the structure of common knowledge in
which states will be led towards a peaceful security and it will provide security for them. An example
of it is the end of the cold war. When the super-powers adopted that the Cold War had ended, then it
was ended (Wendt 1999). He argues that international politics is not just the sphere of security as
realism believes or acquires wealth as what liberalism believes, but it is sphere of understanding. States
in this way may follow the policies in their foreign policy that do not fit in with the framework of
either realism or liberalism.
On the basis of constructivism, security gets meaning under conditions that states understand
from their environment in which they act and form the meaning that they give to anarchy. Wendt
(1992) argues that there are three cultures of anarchy, namely Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian. States
create specific kinds of security in everyone. He argues that Hobbesian culture that had dominated the
world affairs until the seventeenth century made states cast each other as enemy; states supposed each
other as threatening adversary that would use violence against each other in every opportunity.
Therefore, violence was employed as a basic tool for survival in the Hobbesian culture. In the Lockean
culture, on the contrary, violence which has dominated the system of the modern states since the Treaty
of Westphalia in 1648 was not employed as a basic tool for survival. Rivalry is the main characteristic
of the Lockean culture, in which states viewed each other as rivals that might use violence to advance
their interests; however, elimination of each other or use of violence with no limitation against the rival
states had been refrained (Wendt 1992).
Friendship and trust are the elements that characterized the Kantian culture. In the Kantian
culture which emerged only recently in the relations between democracies, states not only do not
observe each other as rivals but friends and the use of force to settle disputes is seen as unnecessary. In
the Kantian culture, states trusted each other and worked as a team to fight security threats. Hence, on
the basis of Wendts argument, three kinds of security society can be distinguished in the history of the
world politics. The final one is the society in which security dilemma is at its least level (Wendt 1999);
therefore, learning how to play our roles in the international politics will help to overcome problems
related to security dilemma.
Meanwhile, Constructivism claims that states are agents and they have goals to achieve in the
international system. Agents, or in other word states, engage in a new practice to change their identities
or interests. In more specific, agents changed or remade political system through their practices.
Therefore, all deep changes in international system occur when the agents change the rule and norms of
international system through their practices. The norms and rules are constructive of international
Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

14

interaction (Zehfuss, Smith et al. 2002). On the basis of constructivism, it is impossible to separate
international system and domestic structures because changes made in international level depends on
the domestic practices of states that happen in internal system. Practices lead to the rise of the new
conception of identity of agents and interest in international system, while the interaction of states in
international system causes new practices (Zehfuss, Smith et al. 2002).
Constructivism emphasizes that all institutions such as identities, interests and anarchy are not
given. Their relationships are based on and can be interpreted and reproduced during the process of
practice. Agents define and interpret concepts such as security and insecurity based on their knowledge
which is not an intrinsic character of the situation. Agents just guess what their security is and what is
not. Thus, all these institutions are changeable. Agents interpret their security on the basis of threats
which are not naturally constructed and not on the basis of the agents knowledge (Wendt 1992).
Social constructions are changeable, not timeless and changes can be either negative or positive.
This particular thinking about social constructions may produce new practice and interaction.
Alexander Wendt mentioned that the end of the Cold War was an evidence to prove that the thinking
about social constructions changed the nature of practice and interaction. When Gorbachev wanted to
end the Cold War and cooperate with the west, he rejected Leninist belief about the world politics and
more importantly, he understood the role and practice of the Soviet Union were in conflict between the
socialist world and the capitalist world. Therefore, the agents can change the world by changing their
ideas about the world. All the norms and identities are constructed and changeable by practice of actors
or agents. Concepts such as security and insecurity are following the same way, i.e. they get changed if
their practices change the inter-subjective meaning of the present conditions for the agents (Wendt
1992).
In Constructivism, practices refer to all the ways used by agents in dealing with rules and other
agents. Agents may follow or break the rules or change them. It is not necessary for the agents to know
what the rules say, as they guess what they are about and practice on the basis of their interpretations of
the rules. Rules specify who the active participant is in a specific time (Kubalkova, Onuf et al. 1998).
Meanwhile, agents choose on the basis of these rules. The rules determine what the agents do or not to
do. Agents have and attempt to achieve goals and the rules show them which goal is more important
and which one is not. Nonetheless, there are situations in which the rules cannot show the way of
practices to agents or the agent do not have enough information about the situation; therefore, they
interpret the situation and rules and later adapt them together. All in all, rules help agents to define or
interpret situations. As indicated earlier, agents make choices and then practice on the basis of their
interpretations of a particular situation. All of these acts are rational and there is possibility fallibility
for the agents in all situations (Kubalkova, Onuf et al. 1998). In other words, the understanding of a
particular action is the responsibility of interpretation. Agents refer to the rules and norms in order to
interpret of their own actions and the others that will help them to understand what is going on at that
time. The accuracy of their interpretation of the situation is not definite, but the agents will practice on
the basis of the supposition that they are making the right interpretation (Zehfuss, Smith et al. 2002).
For example, on the basis of the constructivism, the events of September 11 put the United States in a
new situation, in which some concepts such as security and threat needed to be redefined. The new
definition was based on the interpretation of the United States about the concept that this interpretation
was based on its inter-subjective understanding.

5. Conclusion
Although different meanings have been attributed to the term security, there has been consensus on
concept of security based on the definition of Wolfers. The feeling of fear is the centre point for the
definition of security, while the lack of threat has been emphasized as the factor that causes the
elimination of feeling of fear. But the lack of fear has been interpreted variously in main approaches of
international relations. Realists believe that the security got its meaning according to anarchical self Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

15

help system in which no states trust the others in security matters. Accordingly, values and beliefs have
least influence on interpretation of security among states. In contrast, reflectivist theories argue that
values matter. In other words, states interpret their security according to their own values and interests.
Constructivists attempt to reconcile the main approaches in understanding the concept of security.
They believe that the security like other conceptual phenomena is a social construction which is based
on both main assumptions of rationalism and reflectvism and in result is changeable.

References
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

Adler, E. (September 1997). "Seizing the Middle Ground:: Constructivism in World Politics."
European Journal of International Relations 3: 45.
Baylis, J. (2001). International and Global Security in Post-Cold War Era. The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introdoction to International Relations. J. Baylis and S. Smit. New York,
Oxford University Press.
Burchill, S. and A. Linklater (1996). Theories of International Relation, Macmillan press LTD.
Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years Crisis. Londan, Macmillan.
Cox, R. W. (1981). "Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory." Millennium-Journal of International Studies 10: 30.
Dunne, T. (2001). Liberalism. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to
international relations. S. Smith and J. Baylis. New York, Oxford University Press.
Dunne, T. and C. schmidt (2001). Realism. Globalization of World Politics. J. Baylis and S.
smith, Oxford University Press.
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy - Understanding the International Economic
Order. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Griffits, M. (1999). Fifty Key Thinkers in International relations. London and New York,
Routledge.
Herz, J. (1951). "Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma." World Politics 2(2): 24.
Hobden, S. and R. W. Jones (2001). Marxist Theories of International Relations. The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. J. Baylis and S.
Smit. New York, Oxford University Press.
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye (2001). Power and Interdependence. New York, Longman.
Krasner, S. D. (1976). "State Power and the Structure of International Trade." World Politics: A
Quarterly Journal of International Relations(3): 30.
Kubalkova, V., N. Onuf, et al. (1998). International Relations in a Constructed World New
York, M. E. Sharp, Inc.
Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in International Relations. New York, Cambridge University
Press.
Lake, D. A. (2001). "Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions." International
Security 2001, 26 (1), 31.
Linklater, A. (December 1980). "Rationality and Obligation in the States-system: the Lessons
of Pufendorf's Law of Nations." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 9: 13.
Mearshiemer, J. (1990). "Back to the future:Instability in Europe after the Cold War."
International security 15(1): 52.
Mearshiemer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power politics. New York, Norton Company.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1972). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York,
Alfred Knopf.
Nye, J. S. (2004). "The Decline of Americans soft Power." Foreign Affaires 83(3): 5.

Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

16

[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]

Nye, J. S. (Winter 2002-2003). "Limits of American Power." Political Science Quarterly

117(4): 15.
[24] Rosenberg, J. (1994). The Empire of Civil Society: a critique of the realist theory of
international relations. London, Verso.
Soltani, F, Jayum, A. J, & Zaid, B. A, September 11th 2001 and Security Dilemma. Canadian
Journal of Social science, 6 (5), 12.
Wallerstein, I. (1976). The Modern World-SystemSystem: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, Academic
Press.
Waltz, K. (1959). Man, The State, And war. New York, Colombia university press.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York, Random House.
Wendt, A. (1992). "Anarchy is What States Make of It: Social Construction of Power Politics."
International Organizations 46 , (2): 15.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. New York, Cambridge University
Press.
Wolfers, A. (1952). "National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol." Political Science Quarterly
67(4): 22.
Zakaria, F. (winter 1992/93). "Is Realism Finished?" the National Interest 30: 11.
Zehfuss, M., S. Smith, et al. (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of
Reality. New York, Cmbridge University press.
Zupcevic, M. "Can Alexander Wents Approach Provide a Convincing Constructivist Account
of International Politics that Would Help Explain Contemporary Conflict." CEU Political
Science
Journal
Retrieved
1/5,
2009,
from
Http://www.personal.ceu.hu/PolSciJournal/Zupcevic.pdf.

Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 24 (October, 2012)

17