INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CAT 1 (15marks)

Q1. Discuss three major theoretical perspectives and paradigms in international security studies.

Paradigms of International Relation

The world has witnessed numerous international conflicts: Somalia, Rwanda, The Gulf War of 1990-
1991, the Yugoslavia Wars, including the war in Kosovo, and most recently, the war in Afghanistan
(which is not limited to Afghanistan). Such conflicts and pervasive violence might seem unusual but
nothing could be further from the truth. The hard facts are that in international politics wars are a
routine part of the landscape.

At one level things are quite different from war to war: the concrete issues change (in 1990 it was the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in 2001 the terrorist attach on the World Trade buildings), the individuals
change too (Hussein, Milosevic, and Bin Laden). But beneath the leaders and the issues over which they
struggle, there is an underlying similarity to these conflicts.

These similarities suggest that we look for the underlying patterns, that we try to study the events not
for their uniqueness but for their ordering principles.

Meaning of Paradigm.

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he set forth his ideas
concerning paradigms and paradigm shifts.A paradigm is a view of the world, a worldview that includes
agreement on what the basic units are, what the key problems to be explained are, and a theory to
provide the explanation. While scientists argue about paradigms in quite explicit terms, we should
recognize that we all have some worldview, about the international system as much as about the
physical world.

1.Realism

Realism is a dominant theory in international security studies, emphasizing the role of states in
international relations and the importance of security in their interactions. This theory posits that the
international system is characterized by anarchy, where states are the primary actors and must rely on
themselves for security. Realism is rooted in the idea that states are self-interested and that their
primary goal is to ensure their own survival and security.

The Concept of Security

In realism, security is defined as the absence of threats to a state's survival and power. This concept is
closely tied to the idea of national interest, which is seen as the primary driver of state behavior. Realists
argue that states are rational actors that seek to maximize their power and security in a world where the
absence of a central authority means that they must rely on themselves for protection.

The Role of States

Realism emphasizes the role of states as the primary actors in international relations. States are seen as
unitary actors that pursue their national interests in a self-help world where other actors cannot be
relied upon for security. This means that states must be prepared to use military power and diplomacy
to protect their interests and ensure their survival.

The International System

Realism views the international system as anarchic, meaning that there is no central authority to
regulate the behavior of states. This anarchy creates a self-help environment where states must rely on
themselves for security. Realists argue that this anarchy leads to a constant struggle for power and
security among states, as each state seeks to protect its interests and ensure its survival.

The Role of Power

Realism emphasizes the importance of power in international relations. States are seen as seeking to
maximize their power and influence in order to ensure their security and achieve their national
interests. This means that states must be prepared to use military power and diplomacy to protect their
interests and ensure their survival.

Criticisms of Realism

While realism remains a dominant theory in international security studies, it has faced significant
criticisms. One of the main criticisms is that realism is too focused on the role of power and security, and
neglects other important factors such as economics, culture, and international institutions. Additionally,
realism has been criticized for its pessimistic view of human nature, which assumes that states are
inherently self-interested and that international cooperation is difficult to achieve.

2. Constructivism

It is a significant theoretical perspective in international relations and security studies. It emphasizes the
role of ideas, norms, and social structures in shaping the behavior of states and other actors in the
international system. Constructivists argue that security is not solely determined by material factors
such as military power but also by social and cultural factors.

Key Concepts

 Social Construction: Constructivism posits that significant aspects of international relations are
socially constructed. This means that they are given their form by ongoing processes of social
practice and interaction.
  Ideas and Norms: Constructivists emphasize the importance of ideas and norms in shaping the
behavior of states and other actors. These ideas and norms can influence the way states
perceive their interests and the way they interact with each other.
 Identity and Interests: Constructivists argue that the identities and interests of states are
constructed by shared ideas and norms rather than given by nature. This means that states are
not fixed entities with fixed interests but are shaped by their social and cultural context.
 Social Structure: Constructivists emphasize the role of social structures in shaping the behavior
of states and other actors. These structures can include institutions, norms, and cultural
practices that influence the way states interact with each other.

Applications in Security Studies

 Human Security: Constructivism has been applied to the concept of human security, which
emphasizes the security of individuals rather than just the security of states. Constructivists
argue that human security is shaped by social and cultural factors such as identity, norms, and
institutions.
 Collective Security: Constructivists have also applied their theory to the concept of collective
security, which emphasizes the need for states to work together to achieve security.
Constructivists argue that collective security is possible through the sharing of norms and the
production of a common identity.
 Security Policies: Constructivists have also analyzed the role of ideas and norms in shaping
security policies. They argue that security policies are influenced by the social and cultural
context in which they are made and that they can be changed through the sharing of norms and
the production of a common identity.

Criticisms and Limitations

 Lack of Empirical Evidence: Constructivism has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence.
Some scholars argue that constructivism is too focused on theoretical debates and does not
provide enough concrete examples of how ideas and norms shape the behavior of states.
 Overemphasis on Ideas: Constructivists have been criticized for overemphasizing the role of
ideas and norms in shaping the behavior of states. Some scholars argue that material factors
such as military power and economic interests are also important in shaping the behavior of
states.
 Difficulty in Predicting Behavior: Constructivism has been criticized for its difficulty in predicting
the behavior of states. Some scholars argue that constructivism is too focused on the social and
cultural context and does not provide enough insight into the material factors that influence the
behavior of states.

3. The Security Approach of Liberal Theories

The liberal theory represents a national security paradigm that places the individual at the center and
emphasizes cooperation and solidarity by referring to the good side of human nature. This theory
defines the state as the main responsible authority for the protection of citizens‟ security and freedom.
According to the liberal theory it is regarded, analyzed, and taken into account in addition to the
individual, the relationship of states with individuals and international organizations, multinational
corporations, and non-governmental organizations. The liberal theory differs from the realist theory in
the description of power and its components. According to the realist theory, while conservation of
power balance and relative power considerations are the main factors in the adoption of security
approaches, the liberal theory centers on the central axis of information, discourse, and perceptions
that can be regarded as projections of reality rather than facts.

The liberal theory argues that conflict between states and the anarchic situation in the international
security system arises not only from the fact that states are interested and opportunistic but from the
pessimistic security perceptions created. The liberal theory (Keohane & Nye, 1987, pp. 725-753)argues
that the anarchic perception of the international security system and the distrust between states is not a
natural consequence; that the created reality is different and more optimistic than absolute reality; and
that the problem is a systematic error. The theory emphasizes that to correct perceptions, it is necessary
to establish a common ground for discussion of the projection of the international security system based
on common benefits rather than interests. The liberal theory states that states do not always act
rationally like humans and that assumptions about security build on rationality and constitute the
paradox of absolute interest and security. The liberal theory argues that it is possible to break free from
the paradox of absolute interest and security as a result of prioritizing gains by shifting conflicts. Liberal
theory also rejects absolute rationality perceptions. By rejecting absolute rationality perceptions, it
assumes that the flattened and crooked structure of the international security system, which prepares
the ground for conflict, can be replaced by international organizations and intergovernmental
cooperation. The liberal theory claims that international control mechanisms, the establishment of
judicial systems, and the construction of security norms, which are understood by all states in the same
way, should be addressed before the conflict.

The liberal security theory means developing cooperation with other states to combat evil as a security
system and individual, state, and collective security. According to liberal theory, the state is considered
the main actor in the protection of the security of individuals, societies, states, and the international
system in total. One of the most important differences between the liberal theory and the realist theory
is that the realist theory has adopted the concept of absolute gain by which the parties can consolidate
the interests of all sides and that the gain of one part will not be the absolute loss of the other, by
changing the concept of zero-sum game theory, which is based on the argument that one side will
prevail. This understanding encourages cooperation between states and emphasizes collective security
understanding with a strong reference to international organizations. The liberal theory argues that
institutionalization, transparency, good governance, and the strengthening of democratic institutions
can be ensured in terms of security.

Q2. Analyse the respective roles of 3 different political actors situated at international, transnational
and domestic levels in the development and resolution of international security problems.
1. States

States remain the primary actors in international security, possessing the traditional attributes of
sovereignty, territory, population, and government. As such, states play a central role in:

 Formulating national security policies and strategies to protect their interests

 Participating in international negotiations and agreements related to security issues
 Contributing military and economic resources to address security challenges
 Exercising their veto power in international organizations like the UN Security Council

However, states' ability to unilaterally resolve security problems has diminished due to the rise of
transnational threats and the need for collective action.

2. International Organizations

International organizations, both governmental (IGOs) and non-governmental (NGOs), have become
increasingly important in international security. They play a role in:

 Providing a forum for states to negotiate and coordinate security policies

 Monitoring compliance with international laws and norms related to security
 Delivering humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance in conflict zones
 Facilitating the exchange of intelligence and best practices among member states

IGOs like the UN, NATO, and the OSCE have been particularly active in conflict resolution, crisis
management, and post-conflict reconstruction.

3.Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NGOs have also emerged as significant actors in international security, often complementing the efforts
of states and IGOs. NGOs contribute by:

 Advocating for human rights and the protection of civilians in armed conflicts
 Providing relief and rehabilitation assistance to victims of war and natural disasters
 Monitoring the implementation of international treaties and exposing violations
 Conducting research and raising awareness on emerging security threats

NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Committee of the Red
Cross have been at the forefront of promoting humanitarian norms and accountability in international
security.

Reference

 Ahmed, F. and Syed, A. (2020). International relations theories and security. Modern Diplomacy,
5(1), 1-7.
 Ang, L. Isar, Y. R. and Mar, P. (2016). Cultural diplomacy: beyond the national interest.
Routledge.
  Bails, J. (2008). The concept of security in ınternational relations. International Relations, 5(18),
69-87
 Kolasi, K. (2013). Peaceful end of the cold war and theories of international relations. University
Journal of Social Sciences, 68 (2), 149 -179.
 Kolasi, K. (2014). Critical theory and security: security for whom? international security
theoretical evaluations. Tarcan Printing House.
 Kuhn, S. T. (1982). The structure of scientific revolutions. Alan Publishing
 Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge University Press


Due date: 14 June 2024