Introduction to Security Studies - Lecture notes - Lecture 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

POL 114 10/02/15 LECTURE 1Introduction to Security Studies Aims of the module  Introduce you to the study of security in the global system  Introduce you to the language of security  Look at the evolution of ‘security’ and the implications this has had for world politics  Critically assess the d...

Description

POL 114

10/02/15

LECTURE 1

Introduction to Security Studies Aims of the module 

Introduce you to the study of security in the global system



Introduce you to the language of security



Look at the evolution of ‘security’ and the implications this has had for world politics



Critically assess the different analytical frameworks used in interpreting security



Explore the implication of security for the behaviour of actors Contact Information.

Dr Helen Turton = [email protected] Office hours = Tuesdays 4-5pm and Wednesdays 12-1pm Office = Elmfield 108b Core Texts. 

Paul D. Williams (ed) Security Studies: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2013).



Columba Peoples and Nick Vaughan Williams, Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2010). What is security studies? Security studies is to do with threats to survival. But……survival of what or whom? But……what constitutes a threat? What is security studies? “Security studies may be defined as the study of the threat, use and control of military force. It explores the conditions that make the use of force more likely, the ways that the use of force affects individuals, states and societies, and the specific policies that states adopt in order to prepare for, prevent or engage in war” (Walt, 1991: 121).

POL 114

10/02/15

LECTURE 1

What is security studies? Core element: threat. Lack of consensus about: Who is threatened - Whose survival are we concerned about? What types of threat are most important? Which values are we concerned about protecting? What is security? Security is a matter of high politics. Central to government debates and pivotal to the priorities they establish. “no other concept in international relations packs the metaphysical punch, nor commands the disciplinary power of ‘security’” (Der Derian 1995:24-25). Quotes: 

- Walter Lippmann

‘A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war’. (1943) 

Peter Hough

‘If people, be they government ministers or private individuals, perceive an issue to threaten their lives in some way and respond politically to this, then this issue should be deemed to be a security issue’ (2008) 

Ken Booth

‘Emancipation is the freeing of people... from the physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do... Emancipation, theoretically, is security’ (1991) 

Mohammed Ayoob

‘Security-insecurity is defined in relation to vulnerabilities – both internal and external – that threaten or have the potential to bring down or weaken state structures, both territorial and institutional, and governing regimes’ (1995).

Traditional Vs. Critical Security Studies. Four key questions have defined and divided ‘security studies’: 1. Should the state be the primary ‘referent object’? 2. Should we study internal threats as well as external threats? 3. Should we be concerned about non-military threats? 4. Should security always be associated with dangers, urgency, and enemies? (Buzan and Hansen 2008: 10-13) 

Traditional Security Studies.

1. Should the state be the primary ‘referent object’? YES.

POL 114

10/02/15

LECTURE 1

2. Should we study internal threats as well as external threats? NO. 3. Should we be concerned about non-military threats? NO. 4. Should security always be associated with dangers, urgency, and enemies? YES. 

Critical Security Studies.

1. Should the state be the primary ‘referent object’? NOT NECESSARILY. 2. Should we study internal threats as well as external threats? YES. 3. Should we be concerned about non-military threats? YES. 4. Should security always be associated with dangers, urgency, and enemies? NOT NECESSARILY. 

History of Security Studies. Four phases of security studies



1.Inter-World War period



2.Cold War



3.Post-Cold War



4.Post-September 11 Between the World Wars.

 Dominant school: idealism (strong version of liberalism).  Dominant concern: avoiding another war.  Dominant idea: international security can be promoted through cooperation and negotiated dispute settlement.  League of Nations = established 1919 = dissolved 1946. Cold War.  Dominant school: realism  Security studies as strategic studies.  Dominant concern: military strategy to increase a state’s security relative to adversaries, and to deter an adversary from launching an attack.  WMDs shaped the political/research agenda: “how could states use weapons of mass destruction as instruments of policy, given the risk of any nuclear exchange?” (Walt 1991)

POL 114

10/02/15

LECTURE 1

Post-Cold War.  Early critiques of conceptualising security ‘narrowly’ (1980s).  Richard Ullman 1983:  “Since the onset of the CW in the late 1940s, every administration in Washington has defined American national security in excessively narrow and excessively military terms.”  Redefining threat: “a threat to national security is an action or sequence of events that (1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state; or (2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the state or to private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state.”  Discontent with realist theory  Rise of neoliberal institutionalism  Self-interest and international cooperation = compatible  International institutions can reduce the ‘transaction costs’ of cooperation by institutionalising the exchange of information, monitoring and compliance. Post 9/11.  Terrorism now occupies an important place in the field.  Religion has emerged as a key factor of national and international security.  Important question - how to mitigate security threats presented not only by other states but also by non-state actors.

The critical turn 

Securitization theory (Copenhagen School)



Criticisms of the Copenhagen School



Critical Security Studies (Welsh School)



Feminist Security Studies.



Critical security studies.



Critical security studies emerged in reaction to criticisms of the traditional/realist understandings of security.



Traditional understanding of security = 

Top-down.



State-centric.



Narrow.



Eurocentric.



Masculine. Traditional Critiques

Traditionalists argue that broadening and deepening has caused = 

Loss of intellectual coherence.



Inhibits effective policy solutions.



Detrimental, should be focusing on the most pressing problems = war/violence. Securitization Theory.

Barry Buzan Ole Wæver 

Security, is fundamentally about survival: it is when an issue is represented as posing an existential threat to the survival of the referent object.



Existential threat to a referent object = a security issue. -

As soon as a politician states an issue being a securitize one, it becomes through securitization a security issue Top down approach – comes from people with political capital – security is socially constructed Not to be descriptive – oly on severe security studies Security can be abused 

Securitization Theory.

“What then is security? With the help of language theory, we can regard ‘security’ as a speech act. In this usage, security is not of interest as a sign that refers to something more real: the utterance itself is

the act. By saying it [security] something is done (as in betting, giving a promise, naming a ship). By uttering ‘security’ a state representative moves a particular development into a specific areas, and thereby claims a special right to use whatever means are necessary to block it” (Ole Wæver, 1995, p.35)



Securitization Theory.



Securitization: Shifting an issue out of the realm of ‘normal’ political debate into the realm of emergency politics by presenting it as an existential threat.



Securitizing Speech Act: The act of ‘saying security’ in relation to an issue.



Securitizing Move: An attempt to securitize an issue by labeling it as a security issue.



Securitizing Actor: The agent in a position of authority and has enough political capital to convince the audience of the existence of an existential threat. 

Securitization.

Securitization begins by saying security. Securitization is initiated through a speech act. A securitizing move occurs when an issue not previously thought of as a security threat comes to be spoken of as security issue by important political actors. NOT EVERY SECURITIZING MOVE IS SUCCESSFUL.



Securitizing move needs to be accepted by the relevant audience, hence the more political capital, authority and expertise the securitizing actor has the more likely the move is to be accepted.

De-Securitization. 

Security is not always a good thing. –state centric



More security is not necessarily better.



De-securitization: Shifting an issue out of the realm of securitization and emergency politics back into the realm of ‘normal’ political or technical debate.



Securitization process can be abused to legitimise and empower the role of the military or special forces in civilian activities. Criticisms of the Copenhagen School.



Keeps the state central.



Eurocentric.



Can’t account for non-verbal securitizing acts.



Actual process is often non-linear.



Theoretically incompatible; “In effect they have an objectivist theory with relativist consequences” (McSweeny, 1996: 83)

Critical Security Studies (Welsh School). 

Criticizes the CS for its lack of normativity.



CSS = normative as opposed to analytical.



Ken Booth



Richard Wyn Jones



Security should have a purpose. Immanent Critique.



Study of security should seek to highlight range of constraints on human well-being that exist, and challenge the forms of security knowledge and practices that perpetuate these constraints.



“immanent critique involves identifying those features in concrete situations (such as positive dynamics, agents, key struggles) that have emancipatory possibilities then working through the politics (tactics and strategies) to strengthen them”. (Booth, 2007: 250)



“To maintain the traditionalist concept of security simply perpetuates statist, militarised and masculinised definitions of what should have priority in security terms, and to do that leaves the agenda in the hands of the traditional strategic/security specialists” (Booth, 2007, 111).



CSS “goes beyond problem solving within the status quo and instead seeks to help engage with the problem of the status quo”. (Booth, 2005:10)

Referent Object. 

The welfare of individual human beings – that is their freedom from both military and nonmilitary threats – needs to be places at the centre of the security studies agenda.



We should study security in order to learn more about how individuals can maximise their freedom from threats.



= expansive concept of security. Emancipation.



‘survival is about being alive; security is living’



Security = survival-plus.



Security = genuine absence of threats and maximisation of life chances and choices.



‘Emancipation is the freeing of people... from the physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do... Emancipation, theoretically, is security’ (Booth, 1991: 319). Criticisms of the Welsh School.



“Marcuse’s configuration of the relationship between emancipation/liberation and violence resistance call any equivalence of security and emancipation into question”. (Peoples, 2011: 1115 )



Dangerous meta-narrative?



Struggles for security and struggles for emancipation should be kept separate.



“When equated with security, emancipation becomes problematic as it can no longer envisage social transformations outside of the logic of security” (Aradau, 2004: 397-398). Criticisms of the Welsh School.



Idealistic.



Seeks to impose Western values because of its connection to liberalism.



Relies on an abstract moral framework that ignores contemporary security problems.



It has even been connected to Western military interventionism (for example see David Chandler)



Geography changes



Assumes an essentialised notion of individuality. Feminist Security Studies.



“Securitization tends to be a process dominated by powerful actors that benefit from privileged positions. Indeed, the move of securitization depends on, as well as reveals, the power and influence of the securitizing actor, which often happens to be the state and its elites”. (Emmers, 2013: 134)



State leaders, diplomats, soldiers, and international civil servants, typically always mostly men.



“Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression”. (Eleanor Roosevelt).



Criticisms of the Copenhagen School.



Security is the study of men by men, and the CS perpetuates this as it overlooks the role of gender.



CS privileges the role of elite actors.



What about ‘silent security dilemmas’?



CS lacks an understanding of gender-based insecurities.



Feminist Security Studies.



Broaden security agenda to include issues such as wartime rape, domestic violence and prostitution for example.



Aim to challenge the existent bias in security studies.



Aims to identify, interrogate, and resist the ways in which the views, interests and activities of men have been privileged over those of women.



Gender Inequalities.



In some African states over 50% of all women and girls have undergone genital mutilation.



Female refugees are more vulnerable to sexual violence in camps and resettling.



In contemporary conflicts, as much as 90% of casualties are among civilians, most of whom are women and children.



Sexual violence is often deployed systematically to achieve military or political objectives.



Gender Inequalities.



In recent peace negotiations women have represented fewer than 8% of participants and fewer than 3 percent of signatories.



No woman has ever been appointed chief or lead mediator in UN-sponsored peace talks.



Critical engagement with patriarchy = core of feminist and gendered to security.



References.



Claudia Aradau “Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation” Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (2004), pp. 388-413.



Ken Booth “Security and Emancipation” Review of International Studies 17 (1991), pp. 313326.



Ken Booth “Critical Explorations” in K. Booth (ed) Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005).



Ken Booth Theory of World Security (Cambridge, CUP, 2007).



Ralf Emmers “Securitization” in Alan Collins (ed) Contemporary Security Studies: Third Edition (Oxford, OUP, 2013).



B. McSweeny “Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School” Review of International Studies 22 (1) (1996), pp. 81-93.



Columba Peoples “Security after Emancipation? Critical Theory, Violence and Resistance” Review of International Studies 37 (3) (2011), pp. 1113-1135.



Ole Wæver “Securitization and Desecuritization” in Ronnie Lipschutz (ed) On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995).

The security dilemma -

Realist – int. politics is in a security dilemma – what is it?



The Security Dilemma: Roots, Definitions and Consequences



The Security Dilemma and Nuclear Weapons: Disease or Cure?



The Security Dilemma and Alliances



Criticisms of the Security Dilemma The Roots of the Security Dilemma John Herz , 1950



Rooted in realist thinking



According to realists international politics is in a state of anarchy – no higher power than the state, highest authority – each state must look after itself…nobody itself if can turn to – survive and secure itself – self help – Must ensure own Survival



No central authority



States can rely on no one else to protect them



States need at least some defensive capability



Not arming under anarchy risks being destroyed



Problem = weapons are ambiguous – defensive or offensive???? – you never know if weapons for offense or defense? Other state can never know – this is security dilemma – ambiguity and uncertainty Definition Ken Booth and Nicholas Wheeler “two- level strategic predicament”



First level: ‘Dilemma of interpretation’ – we cannot know for sure the motives, intentions & capabilities of others.

-

Judgements need to be made



Second level: ‘Dilemma of response’ – depending on judgement at first level, how should states respond?

-

How do we respond?

Consequences of the Security Dilemma 

Our responses at these two levels are crucial: 

If we misplace trust in the other side we expose ourselves to coercion or even risk annihilation.



If we are too suspicious, we risk self-defeating cycles of hostility or insecurity:

insecurity ----- we arm ------ feel more secure  others arm  others less secure

if you read it wrong, saying state is defensive even if it offensive – your state is in a weak and easy positio...