Summary Security Studies: An Introduction - Week 1-3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Summarry of chapter 1 security studies (pg 1-11) - Summary of the article: Martha Finnemore, “Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity,” World Politics 61 (2009), pp. 58-85 - Summary of Wolfers, Arnold (1952) ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, Political Science Quarter...

Description

International Security notes for Week 2 Reading: Security Studies an Introduction (page 1-11)

What is security?       

Concept saturates contemporary societies around the world. Analyst think “security is like a beauty” Essentially a contested concept (Gailie 1956) no consensus to its meanings. Most IR theorists agree security involves allievation of threats to cherished values. Security secedes an actor who gets what when and how in world politics (Classwell, 1936) Security is the past (security for people in real places) Security as a powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in competition for governments attention (Buzzan 1911: 370)

Security Studies     

Etymology: the study of the origin of words and the ways in which their meanings have changes throughout history SS (security studies) seen as a relatively recent and largely European and American invention that came into effect after WW2. National security studies preferred in the US while strategic studies was a common epithet in the UK. “Western governments found that they could rely on academic institutions for conceptual innovation, hard research” The dominant approach advocates political realism and being preoccupied with the four S’s: States, strategy, science and status quo.

Key developments in theorising about security occurred in 1983 (Barry Buzan People States and Fear)    

Buzan argues an alternative approach security of human resources not just states and this was affected by factors in 5 major sectors. Military security: relationship between armed offensive and defensive capabilities – Buzan preferred study of military security and argued it should be a strategic study. Political security: organisation stability of states, systems of government and ideologies that legitimise them. Economic security: Access to resources finance, markets necessary to sustain acceptable welfare and state power.

Four fundamental questions in security 1) What is security – whose security are we talking about? What counts as a security threat? How can it be achieved? 2) Who security? Central focus of security has been people (Rothschild, 1995) 3) What is a security issue? Every individual has a unique set of values 4) How can it be achieved? Security as a way of legitimising oppressive structures of surveillance and control.

International Security week 3 reading notes Reading: Martha Finnemore, “Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity,” World Politics 61 (2009), pp. 58-85 Polarity: various ways in which power is distributed within the international system, describes the nature of the international system at any given time. Four types – unipolar, bipolarity, tripolarity, multipolarity Author looks at three social mechanisms that limit unipolar and shape its possible uses. Three mechanisms that limit: 1) Legitimisation 2) Institutionalisation 3) Laws, rules and institutions Legitimisation: exercise power effectively -> uni-poles must legitimate it and in the act of legitimising their power – uni-poles must diffuse it = power usually means to some end in social life. Institutionalisation: Contemporary world -> powerful western states like the US have relied on rational legal authorities (laws rules and institutions) Laws, rules and institutions: have a legitimacy of their own in contemporary politics that can derive away. Once in place these laws, rules and institutions have power and internal logics that unipoles find it difficult to control. The social structure of legitimisation, institutionalisation diffuse power away from unipoles. -

-

Unipoles can often feel constraints of legitimisation of structures and institutions that they themselves have created and one common behavioural manifestation of these constrains is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy undermines respect and deference both for the unipole and for the two values on which is has legitimised its power.

Conclusion -

Strength of a unipolary system depends on 1) material capabilities 2) social system which the unipolarity is embedded. Unipoles can shape systems to some extent Unipoles can portray themselves as champions of universal values appealing to states and other publics. Invest in building of norms/institutions which benefit from them Example: US success following WW2 (under its own sphere of influence under bipolarity US built an extended institutional architecture designed to shape global politics that served interests and propagated values. Favoured liberal model of free market and democracy became the model of choice for states around the world.

Process by which unipole’s power is legitimised fundamentally alters the social fabrics of politics. Successful legitimisation persuades people that the unipole will serve at the same value. Those persuaded may include publics in the unipoloar state, foreign state ad public even decision makers. Legitimacy can thus constrain Unipoles creating resistance or have a profound effect.

Institutionalising power changes the political playing field – creates new authority actors (intergovernmental organisations) that make rules, create programmes and make decision based on the values they embody. Legitimacy is invaluable to Unipoles as creating a robust international order is impossible without it Unipoles will bend over backward to secure it as great power demands great legitimacy. Service to the values that legitimate its power and institutions can be inconvenient for Unipoles.

International Security week 4 reading notes Reading: Wolfers, Arnold (1952) ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, Political Science Quarterly, 67:4, pp. 481–502   

Why do we care? National security Ambiguous: open to more than one interpretation – a double meaning -> article is arguing what it means by national security.

National interest: suggests a direction of policy which can be distinguished from several others may present themselves as alternatives. It indicates the policy is designed to promote demands which are ascribed to the nation rather than the individual, subnational groups or mankind as a whole. Charles beard study: the idea of national interest: published in the early years of the new deal also during the impact of depression. Today: alternative to a policy of the national interest to which people refer is to a different character -> they fear policy makers may be unduly concerned with the interest of all of mankind. Change of interpretation: welfare to a security interpretation of the symbol “national interest” is understandable. (AS A RESULT OF THIS THE FORMULA OF NATIONAL INTEREST AND NATIONAL SECURITY ARE PRACTICALLY SYNONMOUS) National interest continued: established in the discourse of international relations to designative an objective of policy distinguishable from others.  

Policies: demands for a policy of national security is primarily normative in character. Most appeals for a policy are guided by national security – such appeals usually assume that nations in fact have made security their goal except when idealism or utopianism of their leaders has led them to stay away from the traditional path.

Interest vs security  



The term security covers a range of goals so wide that highly divergent policies are interpreted as policies of security Walter Lippman: a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it is wishes to avoid war and is able if challenged to maintain them by victory in such a war. Security is a VALUE of which a nation can have more or less which it can aspire to have in greater or lesser measure.

How should we define this? -

Efforts for security are bound to be experienced as a burden. Security is nothing but the absence of the evil of insecurity, a negative value to speak....