Critical thinking on security dilemma in international politics

International relations experience radical changes in how security is conceptualized. Traditional studies of inter-state relations typically define security in military 1 and determinism 2 or fear and conflict 3. However, in light of recent international developments, particularly in a post-Cold War era, non-state actors are increasingly viewed as fundamental in international relations not only between but also within states 4. The case for security is lent further urgency, moreover, due to an increasing privatization of military skills in an international market of corporate warfighting 5. This is not to mention notable gaps in women’s roles during war – gaps which highlight major flaws in framing security in international relations and politics 6.
____________________
1. Roland Paris. ” Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” abstract, International Security 26 (2006): 87-102, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1162/016228801753191141. http://www. mitpressjournals. org/.
2. Ken Booth. Theory of World Security, abstract (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), accessed December 28, 2014, http://hdl. handle. net/2160/974.
3. Ken Booth and Nicholas Wheeler. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust in World Politics, abstract (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), accessed December 28, 2014, http://hdl. handle. net/2160/801.
4. Mark Beeson and Alex J. Bellamy. ” Globalization, Security and International Order After 11 September,” abstract, Australian Journal of Politics & History 49 (2003): 339-54, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1111/1467-8497. 00290. http://onlinelibrary. wiley. com/.
5. P. W. Singer. ” Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and Its Ramifications for International Security,” abstract, International Security 26 (2006): 186-220, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1162/016228801753399763. http://www. mitpressjournals. org/
6. Katrina Lee Koo. ” Confronting a Disciplinary Blindness: Women, War and Rape in the International Politics of Security,” abstract, Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (2002): 525-36, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1080/1036114022000032744. http://www. tandfonline. com/
Indeed, security remains a largely underdeveloped concept for a broad range of reasons 7, from changing international structures 8, shifting alliances 9, to securitization 10. This paper aims, consequently, to address major problematic issues in security as a dilemma in international relations in order to explore viable frameworks for understanding and qualification.
Historical frameworks of security in international relations emphasize a state-centered, military approach 11. These frameworks – such as nation-state-centered ones 12 – show increasingly flawed conceptualization of security in a radically changing international context, particularly when state is no longer a defining actor of security in international relations. More innovative frameworks are, consequently, emerging to address gaps in understanding security, particularly in a post-Cold War era 13, 14.
____________________
7. Barry Buzan, People, States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Colchester: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 2009), Google Books edition.
8. Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil. ” Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet empire’s demise and the international system,” abstract, International Organization 48 (1994): 215-47, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1017/S0020818300028174. http://journals. cambridge. org/action/login.
9. Glenn H. Snyder. ” The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” abstract, World Politics 36 (1984): 461-95, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 2307/2010183. http://journals. cambridge. org/action/login.
10. Michael C. Williams. ” Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics,” abstract, International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003): 511-31, accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1046/j. 0020-8833. 2003. 00277. x. http://onlinelibrary. wiley. com/.
11. Barry Buzan, People, States & Fear.
12. Mark Beeson and Alex J. Bellamy. ” Globalization, Security and International Order After 11 September.”
Indeed, one most influential framework of security is securitization 15. Though conceptual and non-policy-making framework, securitization remains an indispensible security analysis approach used in identifying, not a material object of security as in classical state-centered, military approaches, but actor(s), object(s), and audience(s) engaged in a securitized context 16.
Human security is no less an influential framework. Addressing issues of development and equality 17, human security is increasingly been viewed as a replacement of conventional national security frameworks. The main emphasis
in a human security framework represents, in fact, a major paradigm shift from a
military-centered approach to security to much broader conceptions of security not only at state level but also at sub-national and individual ones 18.
____________________
13. Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams. ” Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” abstract, Mershon International Studies Review 40 (1996): 229-54, accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. jstor. org/stable/222776. http://www. jstor. org/.
14. Richard H. Ullman. ” Redefining Security,” abstract, International Security 8 (1983): 129-53, accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. jstor. org/stable/2538489. http://www. jstor. org/.
15. Michael C. Williams. ” Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics.”
16. Rita Floyd. ” Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move,” Human Security Journal 5 (2007): 38-49, accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. securitehumaine. univ-cezanne. fr/fileadmin/IEHI/Documents/REVUE_5/FLOYD_HS_AND_THE_COPENHAGEN_SCHOOL_SECURITIZATION_APPROACH. pdf.
17. Mark Beeson and Alex J. Bellamy. ” Globalization, Security and International Order After 11 September.”
18. Roland Paris. ” Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”
Although both securitization and human frameworks help cover crucial gaps in understanding security, a combination of both – and additional, emerging frameworks – should contribute to a more dynamic, holistic framework given current complexities of international relations and politics. Indeed, shifting international structures – of all factors – is one most significant one in establishing such a framework. For not only actors are no longer limited to well-defined, centralized ones, mainly state actors, but major institutional changes 19 as well as outsourcing a once state monopolized military service 20.
In conclusion, modern security dilemma has seen dramatic shifts in international developments. Growing international (in)security issues render conventional, state-centered, military frameworks obsolete. As a result, more dynamic, innovative frameworks are emerging in order to address unfulfilled gaps. Still, existing, evolving frameworks require more sophisticated engagements in order to address more complicated issues in an increasingly, fluid world of international politics.
____________________
19. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), Google Books edition.
20. P. W. Singer. ” Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and Its Ramifications for International Security.”

Bibliography

Beeson, Mark and Bellamy, J. Alex. ” Globalization, Security and International Order After 11 September,” Australian Journal of Politics & History 49 (2003): 339-54. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1111/1467-8497. 00290.
Booth, Ken. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Accessed December 28, 2014, http://hdl. handle. net/2160/974.
─, and Nicholas Wheeler. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Accessed December 28, 2014, http://hdl. handle. net/2160/801.
Buzan, Barry, People. States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Colchester: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 2009. Google Books edition.
Floyd, Rita. ” Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move,” Human Security Journal 5 (2007): 38-49. Accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. securitehumaine. univ-cezanne. fr/fileadmin/IEHI/Documents/REVUE_5/FLOYD_HS_AND_THE_COPENHAGEN_SCHOOL_SECURITIZATION_APPROACH. pdf.
Holsti, Jaakko Kalevi, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Google Books edition.
Koo, Lee Katrina. ” Confronting a Disciplinary Blindness: Women, War and Rape in the International Politics of Security,” Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (2002): 525-36. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1080/1036114022000032744.
Koslowski, Rey, and Kratochwil, V. Friedrich. ” Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet empire’s demise and the international system,” International Organization 48 (1994): 215-47. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1017/S0020818300028174.
Krause, Keith, and Williams, C. Michael. ” Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review 40 (1996): 229-54. Accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. jstor. org/stable/222776.
Paris, Roland. ” Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security 26 (2006): 87-102. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1162/016228801753191141. http://www. mitpressjournals. org/.
Singer, W. P. ” Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and Its Ramifications for International Security,” International Security 26 (2006): 186-220. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1162/016228801753399763.
Ullman, H. Richard. ” Redefining Security,” International Security 8 (1983): 129-53. Accessed December 28, 2014, http://www. jstor. org/stable/2538489.
Snyder , H. Glenn. ” The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” World Politics 36 (1984): 461-95. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 2307/2010183.
Williams, C. Michael. ” Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003): 511-31. Accessed December 28, 2014, doi: 10. 1046/j. 0020-8833. 2003. 00277. x.