239048080

Word count: 744

Anarchy

This portfolio will talk about the debate between two school of thoughts: Realism and

Neoliberalism. The focus is the cause of war and the difficulty of cooperation

between states when the issue of ‘security dilemma’ is being presented.

Furthermore, I will also demonstrate the theory that the anarchic structure caused

the war between Russia and Ukraine and how the international institution failed in

preventing and ending the war.

Comprehension

To understand the debate, we need to establish what is anarchy in the realms of

International Relations. States are not subject to a common government; thus, it is

an ‘international anarchy’ (Weber 2013: 79; Bull, 1977: 13). Waltz theorized: “with

many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them,” anarchy will

lead to war. This implication created a debate between the Realists and

Neoliberalist. Realists view cooperation unachievable due to the nature of

international politics (Waltz, 1959), meanwhile Neoliberalists believe that there could

have been a lot more possible cooperation through the assistance of institutions

(Keohane, 1984; Jervis, 1999), thus preventing war.

Scholarship

The anarchic international politics is that of a ‘self-help’ system (Dunn, 1937: 13).

This system created a fear driven ‘security dilemma,’ because anarchy makes states

behave as they do to maximize power, since they must rely on their own devices

(Waltz, 1959: 159; Weber, 2013; Waltz: 1979). Because of that fear, Realists find that

1
239048080

there is mistrust between States on each other’s real intention. Contrary to that,

Neoliberals see measures, such as restraints imposed towards States, could

increase cooperation (Jervis, 1999: 50), thus eliminates fear. This could be

represented through laws and sanctions agreed between States (Keohane, 1984:

119), usually in a form of organization or alliance. What lacking from international

institutions is binding force and concrete repercussion. Consequently, cooperation

through institution would only be effective if all States make rational decision – for

example, if they take the other’s interest into consideration (Jervis, 1999: 56-57;

Wheeler, 2008) Therefore, although, there is a cooperation prospect, it is undeniable

that units in anarchic order will eventually prioritize their interest instead of the

organization (Waltz, 1979: 112).

Application

For this section, I will be discussing the 2022 conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

The focus of this section is the ‘security dilemma’ and the international bodies’ lack of

influence on preventing and ending the war.

NATO emerged in 1949 to fight Soviet influence after the Second World War (Sayle,

2019). However, despite the collapse of Soviet Union in 1989, NATO survived and

expanded into Eastern Europe. This expansion led to an insecurity for Russia.

The threat for Russia started to become more imminent when NATO in increased its

footprint in eastern Europe (CNN, 2008), especially after the Crimea annexation in

2014 (Sergey, 2014). Ukraine maximizes its security by amending to the accession

into NATO before being guaranteed a membership in 2020 (CBP, 2023). In

response, Putin drafted a treaty for NATO to guarantee the removal of their influence

in eastern Europe and for Ukraine to never become their member (CBP, 2023), only

2
239048080

to get rejected. Eventually, Russia launched their largest military exercise since the

Cold War out of fear of NATO’s increasing influence on Ukraine. This conflict

continues on, even after the economic sanction by the international community

towards Russia (S&P Global, 2023), to pressure Russia into an agreement of peace

and cooperation.

One can argue that international bodies such as the UN and UN Security Council

seem to have a degree of influence over their member states. In reality, they do not

have effectivity when confronted with rogue States such as Russia, especially when

given a veto power (UN, 2022).

Conclusion

In summary, there is still an on-going debate on the possibility of cooperation

between States in our anarchic international politics. Neoliberals argued that there is

a prospect of cooperation if there exists a mutual understanding between states,

whereas Realist believes that the lack of binding nature (because it is anarchic) and

concrete repercussion make cooperation difficult. When confronted with the issue of

security, it is the nature of every state to prioritize its interest, not the organization.

Russia’s veto power toward the resolution on the conflict shows that UNSC is not

above its member states. Under this anarchic situation, the only way for cooperation

through institution to be effective is all parties must consider each other’s cause.

However, this seem to not be the case for both NATO – for dismissing Russia’s

concern, and Russia – for rejecting any resolution.

3
239048080

Bibliography:

AP (2019), ‘Ukraine president signs amendment on NATO, EU membership’, AP

News, 19 February,

https://apnews.com/article/cb742d45ae394798bbc7891d30efaa71 (Accessed: 10

November 2023).

Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchic Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London:

Red Globe Press.

CBP (2023), ‘Conflict in Ukraine: A timeline (2014 – eve of 2022 invasion)’, House of

Common Library, 22 August,

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9476/CBP-9476.pdf

(Accessed: 11 November 2023).

CNN (2008), ‘U.S. wins NATO backing for missile defense shield’, CNN, 4 April,

https://web.archive.org/web/20080612193607/http://www.cnn.com/2008/

WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/ (Accessed: 7 November 2023).

Dunn, F., S. (1937) ‘Peaceful Change’, Council on Foreign Relations, Vol. 196, Issue

1, pp. vii-156.

Jervis, R (1999) ‘Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the

Debate’, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 42-63.

Kenneth A. (1986) Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Keohane, R. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political

Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

4
239048080

S&P Global (2023), ‘Sanctions against Rusia – a timeline’, S&P Global, 16

November, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-

news-headlines/sanctions-against-russia-8211-a-timeline-69602559 (Accessed:

10 November 2023).

Saluschev, S. (2014), ‘Annexation of Crimea: Causes, Analysis and Global

Implications’, Global Societies Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 37-46.

Sayle, Timothy Andrews (2019), Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the

Postwar Global Order. New York: Cornell University Press

UN (2022), ‘Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution Condemning Moscow’s

Referenda in Ukraine’s Occupied Territories, as Permanent Member Employs

Veto’, United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, SC/15046, 30

September, https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15046.doc.htm (Accessed: 10

November 2023).

Waltz, Kenneth N. (1959) ‘Chapter 6: The Third Image’, in Man, the State, and War.

New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 159-186.

Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) ‘Chapter 6: Anarchic Structures and Balances of Power’, in

Theory of International Politics. Waveland, pp. 102-128.

Weber, C (2013) International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. London:

Taylor & Francis Group.

Wheeler, N., J. (2008) ‘To Put Oneself into the Other Fellow’s Place’, International

Relations, Vol. 22(4), p. 493-509.

5
239048080

Word count: 750

Security

This portfolio will be discussing securitization, a constructivist concept popularized by

Copenhagen school, along with debates from other scholars. I will then demonstrate

why securitization is desirable; taking example of the threat coming from non-state

actors that had been securitized by UN Security Council.

Comprehension

Security in the realms of International Relations study is a contested concept. John

Baylis describes security as “freedom from threats to core values (Baylis, 2023).”

Since the beginning of Cold War, the idea of security has mainly been related to

militarized terms with a state-centric approach (Booth, 2012). To demonstrate, the

UN Charter in its preamble only gives guidance on state-centric security concern

(UN Charter, year). Because of this restrictive approach, there is an on-going debate:

whether there should be a ‘securitization’ on issues that orthodoxy or traditional

scholars would categorize as a mere ‘ordinary’ politics.

Scholarship

Securitization, a concept popularized by Copenhagen school of thought, has been

one of the key debates in the issue of security. Buzan and Wæver introduced the

theory on when and how ‘security emerge and dissolve (Balzacq, 2011),” that

security threats are socially constructed in a process of securitization. Booth (2012)

describes Copenhagen school’s understanding of securitization is conceived as a

‘negative’ value, referring to when states failed to deal with issues as normal politics

(Buzan, 1998); they see security to be militarized, zero-sum, and confrontational.

6
239048080

Scholars who oppose the idea of securitization argued that securitization leads to

inappropriate reactions to some international problems (Brown, 2005) that could

have been resolved through other measures, such as diplomatic talk. Brown

criticized the prospect of militarizing what had been regarded as non-military through

securitization. Copenhagen school’s answer to this unnecessary securitization is

‘desecuritization.’

If securitization is raising the priority of a given issue in the general political melee,

desecuritization is the contrary (Buzan, 1998). Still, Booth challenged this in a

pessimistic way, by noting that ‘ordinary’ politics measure might not help in

extraordinary circumstances; that the elites might desecuritize issues for their own

interest (Booth, 2012). The answer to this concern lies in Buzan’s book, Security: A

New Framework for Analysis.’ For an issue to be securitized, it must fulfill this

criterion: “existential threats to a referent object by a securitizing actor who thereby

generates endorsement of emergency measure beyond rules that would otherwise

bind (Buzan, 1998).” This criterion should be the starting point for the policy makers

to securitize or desecuritize an issue, then finally develop an appropriate measure.

Application

Among other international entities, UN Security Council plays a pivotal role in

securitizing important or global issues through its legal power that is difficult for

states to dispute. To demonstrate UNSC’s role, I will take example the rising threat of

non-state actors post 9/11.

For decades since its entry into force, UN Charter – which recognizes member

state’s inherent right of self-defence against another state – has been very state-

centric (UN Charter, 1945). This creates a problem when a state is confronted with

7
239048080

armed attack coming from a non-state actor, which host country is unwilling or

unable to prevent. Responding to the 9/11 attack, the United States took recourse to

UN Security Council for the permission to invoke their right to self-defence. To this

request, UNSC measured the necessity and proportionality of United States’ self-

defence request and authorized the right through UNSC Resolution 1373:

“Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized

by the Charter of the United Nations (2001).” Yet, scholars are concerned that

securitization might get manipulated by states, in which it will create a devastating

impact to the unable/unwilling host state. To prevent this, the ICJ had established a

custom of “necessity” and “proportionality” through its 2005 Judgment, to make sure

that states would not manipulate this form of securitization against non-state actors

(Armed Activities Judgment, 2005).

Conclusion

There is much debate on whether securitization is necessary or will cause

inappropriate respond to what could have been resolved as ‘ordinary’ politics.

However, considering the tension in international politics that could lead to conflict

with the ever-developing non-state actors, securitization is necessary. UNSC

Resolution 1373 marked the recognition of the raising threat coming from non-state

actors, which previously was considered as the host state’s domestic affair.

Securitization must also be followed by guidance to prevent states from manipulating

it. This is the approach that should be considered. After all, there will always be other

extraordinary issues – for example environment, gender, and racial – that needs to

be securitized when ‘ordinary’ politics does not help.

8
239048080

Bibliography:

Balzacq, T. (2011), Securitization Theory: How Security Problem Emerge and

Dissovle. London: Routledge.

Baylis, J. (2023) ’15. International and global security’, in: Baylis, J., Smith, S.,

Owens, P., The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International

Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 228-254.

Booth, K. (2012) ‘Deepening, broadening, reconstructing’, in: Theory of World

Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-181.

Brown, C., Ainley, K. (2005), Understanding International Relations. London: Red

Globe Press.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O., Wilde, J. (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis.

London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Charter of the United Nations (1945), entry into force: 24 October 1945,

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 11 November

2023).

ICJ (2005), Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo

(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005,

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/116/116-20051219-JUD-01-

00-EN.pdf (Accessed: 11 November 2023).

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), S/RES/1373, adopted: 28 September

2001, https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/terrorism/res_1373_english.pdf (Accessed

12 November 2023).

9
239048080

Walt, Stephen M. (1991), ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International

Studies Quarterly, vol. 35(2), 1991, pp. 211–39.

10