TRADITIONAL SECURITY

Lecture 3
02.04.2022
Traditional concept of (intl’) security

Focus was on the security at the national level

Focus was on the “national security” largely defined in “military”
terms…
That is, focus was on the military capabilities that states need to
deal with the threats coming from outside… Why?
 Because of high frequency of interstate wars…

 Enemy states had been the primary source of security

threats…

 But is it still true in contemporary era?

 Security threats are not coming from other states…

 Now many pundits claim that wars between major

industrialized countries are becoming a relic of the
past…
Frequency of interstate war has decreased
dramatically… one of the key characteristics of
international security in contemporary era –
decreased frequency of interstate wars

However, domestic armed conflicts and civil wars

continue to increase… increased frequency of
intrastate wars
Traditional concept of Security
State centered concept
Military capabilities to protect national security
Military conflict as the defining key to security
Military security concerns the two-level interplay of the
armed offensive and defensive capabilities of states, and
states’ perceptions of each other’s intentions.
 Debates about the concept
security
Traditionalists
-Traditionalists vs. Wideners Wideners
The risk of intellectual Nature of security is
incoherence. changing.
Stephen Walt: Security Security in 21th century
Studies is about the involves economic,
phenomenon of war, and the environmental , and social
study of the threat, use, and issues as much as military
control of military force. issues.
 TABLE SHOWING THE COMPARISON
BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND
HUMAN SECURITY
Traditional National Human Security
Security
Security of whom
(the referent) Primarily the state Primarily the individual

Security of what values Territorial integrity and Personal safety and

national individual freedom
independence Direct threats from
Security from what threats
states
Direct threats from and non-state
state actors +
other indirect threats
Security by what means Force as the primary Humane government
instrument of asthe key instrument of
security security
 PARADIGM
DIFFERENCE

In the traditional In the human

There is yet another
security paradigm, security paradigm,
difference between a state
a state is both a an individual is
and an individual in the
referent to security referent to security
and a securitizing domain of security. but not a securitizing
actor. actor.
Defining national security

Crucial concept for foreign policy but no universal

definition of what it is
Traditional meaning of national security:
protecting and securing the physical survival of
the state from external (military) threats
Protecting territory from foreign invasion
Security redefined (e.g. Wolfers, Buzan) expanded
from military: health, economics, environment,
etc.
 What is National
•
Security?
A multi-dimensional view and response
towards protecting National Interests
against threats, both internal and external
• Dynamic and evolving as a derivative of
National Interests which in itself is an
evolving derivative of National Strength
• Underpins and guarantees the pursuit of
National Objectives in a competing
international arena
 What is National
Any issueInterest?
that has the potential to directly impact the
pursuit of
National Goals can be classified as an area of National Interest
• 5 major dimensions
Has
– Geo - Political
– Economic
– Military
– Socio-cultural
– Science & Technology
•
National Interests therefore stem from the evolving
National goals in each of these dimensions and is also a reflection
of the relative
National Strengths with regard to these dimensions
National security
paradigm
National security paradigm derives from the
neorealist security concept that constitutes the
core of the security field, which developed
gradually into objective academic discipline in
which laws are discovered or at least the correct
method for their discovering (Walt 1991).
“The national security concept is not simple
reaction to objective circumstances, but it is built
based upon series of political and epistemological
choices that define what is understood as security”
(Krause и Williams 1996, 234).
 The Copenhagen
School
It comes down on the side of the wideners in terms of keeping the
security agenda open to many different types of threat.
Theorists associated with the school include Barry Buzan, Ole Waever
and so on.
The prominent concept of the Copenhagen school is securitization
developed by Ole Waever.
Their theory of securitization aims at explaining how issues became
securitized.
When security is more harm than good, they prefer desecuritiazation.
The Copenhagen
School
A key aspect of the securitization ideas is to be aware of the
arbitrary nature of threat, to simulate the thought that the
foundation of any national security policy is not given by nature
but chosen by politicians.
The framework of the school links to existing actors; tries to
understand their modus operandi and assumes that future
management of security will have to include a handling of these
actors.
Human Security
Human development report argues that that insuring "freedom
from want" and "freedom from fear" for all persons is the best
path to tackle the problem of global insecurity.
There is no single consensus definition of human security.
Broad formulation:
Encompasses all forms of threats from all sources.
Includes all threats and vulnerabilities to human freedom and dignity including threats of hunger, disease,
natural disasters, economic downturns, political repression.
Narrow formulation:
Focuses on threats of violence particularly organized political violence.
Emphasizes the more immediate necessity for intervention capability rather than long-term strategic
planning and investing for sustainable and secure development. (Liotta and Owen, 2006)