Lecture-5

International Security

Historically, the concept of international security has been equated with the use of force between
nations, with a particular focus on great power warfare. The new formulations of international
security seemingly rectified the problems raised by the narrow conception of international
security. During and since the 1980s, this description became increasingly questioned in terms of
who or what should be secured, the nature of international threats, and the type of responses that
were subsequently warranted to control these threats. New conceptions of international security
arose to incorporate, inter alia, different actors (such as human security), different forms of
threats (such as environmental security), and different responses (such as non-military collective
action).

Security is a core value of human life. To be secure is to be untroubled by danger or fear. As

Thomas Hobbes reminds us, without security ‘there is no place for industry... no arts, no letters,
no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of
man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.

The expansion of “international security” is consequently characterized by a shift in thinking

with
respect to the referent object, the threat to security, or the means to provide security. This shift
is often achieved by adding adjectives to the term “security.” For instance, environmental
security shifts focus from military to environmental threats; human security shifts focus from the
state to individuals as the referent object; collective security shifts focus from unilateral to
cooperative responses. Traditional definitions can thus be viewed as the foundation from which
modernists expanded the concept of international security. The first two areas of debate (threat
and referent object) form the crux of much of the international security debate, although the third
aspect (response) also has a role.

The first debate focuses on the “threat” itself. Proponents of new conceptions of security
maintain that the security definition must be broadened to incorporate new threats –
environmental degradation, for example – that were previously relegated to other fields
for analysis. Human security likewise moves the discourse beyond traditional threats
 facing the state towards human or individual-centric threats. Although the exact
definition of human security is contested, it was born out of a 1994 United Nations
Development Program report and contained seven security elements: economic, food,
health, environmental, physical harm, community, and political.
In addition to disagreement over what constitutes a proper threat for inclusion in the
definition of international security, referent objects are often vaguely described and are
thus the focus of the second debate. While individuals, societal groups, and states all
appear as focal referent objects in contemporary writings on international security,
traditional notions of security, though they come in various guises, can be generally
understood as the “military defense of state interests and territory”. It became the norm to
view the state as the primary unit of analysis, and as a result, the notion of protecting the
territorial integrity of the state became the end in and of itself. Thus, as Nicholas Thomas
and Willian T. Tow (2002) point out, the state is the primary focus of analysis and action;
a state faces a threat from another state, and it is the state that primarily responds. Yet the
purpose of state security is, at its basic level, intended to protect the people within that
state. Alternatively, new conceptions of security – human security in particular – have
considered the individual to be the unit of analysis.
Beyond the referent object and the threat, there is also a third disagreement, which exists
over the proper response to any given threat. According to Hyde-Price, in terms of
responses, “security has two dimensions: avoiding war (its negative dimension) and
building peace (its positive dimension). Finally, turning to the nature of response, the
traditional definition tends to focus on unilateral and often military reactions to security
threats. This, however, is a function of interpretation and not the definition itself.
According to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is afforded the right to
interfere in any issue it deems a threat to international peace and security.

New forms of international security

International security has taken new forms in the twenty-first century. The concept of
international security as security among states belongs to the twentieth century. Threats
are no longer primarily coming from states. Threats are coming from ethnic groups
obsessed by hyper nationalism, from criminal gangs, mafiosi governance, from epidemics,
terrorism, dangerous food, from poverty, from economic mismanagement, from over-population,
from failed states, from flows of refugees, and, most importantly, from pollution and the effects
of pollution, the irrigation and destruction of nature, and the diversification of nature. The
victims of the new threats are primarily the single individual (individual or human security),
society (societal
security), and the globe (global security). The physical and economic survival of the
individual is threatened. The survival of societies is threatened, as concerns identity and
coherence. The survival of the world as we know it is threatened in the long-run. For the
first time in history there is a common, global awareness of the necessity of fighting for
the sustainability of the globe.

Security is a highly contested concept. Is it at all possible to use it as a scholarly

concept? Security is a word in common use, used in relation to a wide variety of
personal and collective activities and conditions. One can distinguish between security
in normal daily activities (job, economy, sex, transport, food), security for positive,
desirable conditions (democracy, freedom, prosperity, development, a good life), and
security against negative conditions (war, pollution, crime, all kinds of threats).
In a way we have three different realms for the term “security.”

 First, the broad, day-to-day use of the word, referring to a position aspired to: of being
safe, secure, protected.
 Second, the political use of the word, referring to political actions, processes, or
structures that can secure the safety of a political unit. In the political sphere the term
“security” is used as a political tool, for example, to provide a certain phenomenon with
a specific priority by placing it in the realm of high politics.
 Finally, “security” can be used as an analytical concept to identify, describe, understand,
explain, or even predict phenomena in the general social realm; phenomena such as
“security policy,” “security-policy interaction,” or “security institutions and structures.”

Security Policy

A significant change in the political use of the term “security” was, however, the
invention of the concept of security policy. The United States, as the most important
unit in the international system, was the initiator. In 1947 the US administration
introduced the National Security Council, which became a model for several countries
around the world. This also involved the introduction of a new concept, “security
policy.” Now it became possible for states, in linguistic terms, to conduct or pursue a
security policy. Security policy was more than defense policy, more than military
policy, more than a policy aimed at being prepared for war. Security policy also aimed
at avoiding war. Security policy encompassed internal, domestic security, economic-
development policy, and policy for influencing the international system so as to create a
peaceful environment, regionally as well as globally, including foreign aid to
developing countries.

Security after the cold war

With the end of the cold war in 1989–91, confrontation disappeared and partnership
took over: bipolarity was replaced by unipolarity. This implied a new security agenda.
On the global level hard security remained, but internationally, major wars were now
fought in an asymmetrical manner, that is, between the only remaining superpower, the
United States, supported by its associates, partly on behalf of international society,
against international lawbreakers like Iraq and the Taliban regime. For the first time
ever major wars (the Gulf War and the Afghanistan anti-terror war) were fought by
forces authorized by what could be called “international society,” that is, the UN
Security Council acting on behalf of all UN member states in matters of “international
peace and security.”

On the global and regional level, the “old” extended security agenda from the golden days of
détente has returned; now, however, with the addition of at least four important “new” issue
areas of security.

o First, societal security, thanks to the emergence of new or renewed political units based
on nationalism or ethnicity, which may cause waves of refugees.
o Second, individual security, due to renewed emphasis on human rights and international
crime.
 o Third, security for the human body, against worldwide epidemics, pollution of food, and
the lack of food.
o Finally, “new technology security,” due to threats to the vulnerable IT systems,
important of course only for technologically-advanced countries.

Six levels of security actors

So, how can we deal with the complex problem of security in the new international
system? In order to establish a general understanding of the analytical concept of
security we would like to introduce a simple model. It is not our purpose to provide a new
framework, rather the opposite: traditional dividing lines are re-used
and re-combined. A useful and rewarding exercise is to distinguish between six levels of
security, each defined by the security actors that at the same time are victims of the security-
related threats at that level:

1. Security for the individual (individual security).

2. Security for the social group, the community, “nation,” organized national or
ethnic entity (societal security).
3. Security for the state or “nation,” in the US terminology (national security).
4. Security for the region, that is, a coherent security region, not necessarily one
based on proximity (regional security).
5. Security for the society of nations or what could be referred to as “international
society,” consisting of all, or most states in the world (international security).
6. Security for the globe, meaning “Spaceship Earth” or the planet (global
security)

o The individual as victim: threats to physical and economic survival

To the single individual there are vital threats coming from practically all security
actors: from other individuals, from society, from the state, from the region and from the
globe. It is interesting to note that according to statistics of criminal acts, life-and-death
threats from person to person most often occur inside families or close groups. The most
 dangerous place seems to be the home. However, vital threats could also come from a
societal, collective actor.
o Society as the victim: threats to identity
Society will not be a victim of threats coming from the individual. Even in very extreme
cases one can hardly imagine a terrorist representing only him/herself or a small violent
group, threatening the existence or the identity of a whole society. This threat
relationship is weak. A threat to identity from a competing society is, however,
probable, and may be seen as vital.
o The state as victim: threats to sovereignty
Assessing the state as a victim of vital threats, which will primarily concern
sovereignty, one can assert that the individual does not pose any essential threat for the
state, any more than for society.
o The region as victim: threats to stability and coherence
So far as the region, or rather the regional organization, is a victim, threats will mainly
relate to stability in the region and the coherence of the regional organization. Individual
and societal actors will play minor roles. States, however, will be able to pose a threat to
regional stability and coherence. This involves, primarily, major and great powers,
including superpowers, as, due to their influence on the salient environment, they are to
a large degree able to construct and deconstruct regions and sub-regions, and in this way
seriously affect the existence or non-existence of regional organizations.

Conclusion

An integrated definition should therefore include those challenges that could threaten the
international system, either through direct violence between states or by means of state
instability, particularly state implosion. This definition recognizes that international security can
be affected by non-military threats as well as state and/or non-state groups. Further, an integrated
definition acknowledges that although unilateral responses may be in order at times, many issues
affecting current international security involve – and indeed require – an international response.
Thus, in this integrated definition, threats are defined by their impact (international violence or
state instability) rather than their type (such as environmental) or origin (such as
refugee flow). This provides a starting point for an integrated analysis of international security
that allows for the inclusion of any threat, referent object, or response, so long as it affects the
international system or involves the international community.