Security Studies Essay Example | Assignments Criminology

Introduction

During the cold war era, orthodox explanations of security have occupied primacy in our understandings of the

international system (Ikenberry, 2009). Assumptions such as the state of anarchy of the global system and democratic

peace theory have been the presiding ideas of the discipline. Of the two orthodox positions, it is the contention of this

paper that liberalism best aids our understanding of security and international relations (IR) more generally. Liberalism

argues interdependence and cooperation are the best way to understand and achieve security (Ikenberry, 2009).

Although it will be argued that liberalism is the most succinct and developed theory to aid our understanding of security,

it is not without its critiques and does not adequately explain phenomena such as the state as a form of oppression of

society in terms of identity and culture. For these explanations and understandings, we have to turn to theories of

postcolonialism (Seth, 2013; Hassan, 2015; Young, 2016) and feminism (Oswald-Spring, 2008) that highlight the issues of

those not privy to the democratic state or a state in the Westphalian sense at all (Hobson, 2013). This paper will analyse

security using Barry Buzan (1991), framework for analysis which incorporates the five sectors of security arguing that

liberalism successfully aids our understanding of security within this context most explicitly and effectively. These

sectors, whilst not existing in a vacuum, will be tackled independently to show that liberalism has greatly contributed to

our understanding of security. In being critical, each sector will also be used to illustrate apparent weaknesses

highlighted by other theories as stated above. As stated above, liberalism does not do it all (Ivison, 2002), however, with

our understandings of societal and environmental security lacking from the Liberal perspective (Hama, 2017). To that

end there will be a focus on the postcolonial and human security schools of thought with an occasional interjection from

realist and the English schools (Navari, 2016) of thought. For the purposes of this essay the terminology of dependency

literature of center-periphery will be used as it is felt that it presents the most suitable descriptors of states and their

current positions in the globalised world (Caporaso, 1978). This, in line with liberalist thought, places at the center a core

of capitalist economies, which includes previously peripheral states such as South Korea and China with the rest of the

developing world constituting the periphery (Caporaso, 1978).

Discussion (first section of my argument)

Political security within a liberalist paradigm was the main focus of the 1990s (Hassan, 2015). In the post-cold war era,

many of the autocracies that were supported began to crumble or be forcibly changed as peripheral states found the

legitimacy of their one-party systems and dictatorships undermined by the collapse of communism that had always

provided a complementarity to those with anti-western postures (Buzan, 1991, pp. 439). It was at this time that the

burgeoning international community were revitalised in their commitment to cooperation in regard to political security,

which was described in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Report as the prevention of government

oppression, violations of human rights and increased militarisation (UNDP, 1994). This was the platform for the

responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine which subsequently evolved into a discussion on the right to intervention, on

whose authority that intervention could take place and the suspension of sovereignty on humanitarian grounds (Hassan,

2015). This was in light of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) intervention in the Balkans during the 1990s

without the consent of the United Nations (UN) (Philpott, 2001). This action was deemed illegal but legitimate and led to

questions of when it is ok to intervene to uphold the tenets of human rights. This came off the back of a decade of

democratisation with not only peripheral states benefitting but European states such as Spain and earlier Portugal

becoming democracies for the first time in the post-war period (Dodds, 2007). According to the liberalist school of

thought, this expansion of democratic rule across the globe would bring not only a perpetual peace but a positive one

(Roy, 2008). This type of peace envisioned not only the end of war, but the active hospitality of state actors and global

citizens as democratic nations would not fight (Mousseau, 2005). The revival of the democratic peace theory would have

significant implications on political security across the globe (Farnham, 2003; Mousseau, 2005; Hobson, 2011). In the first

instance the liberal model of institutional cooperation and interdependence gave the United Nations (UN) the

unprecedented drive to increase political security in light of the Human Development Report (HDR) 1994. This added

impetus and the desire to spread democracy was seen as a good thing for political security (Webb, 2009).

The significance of the democratic peace theory is twofold. Firstly, there is the monadic version that argues that

democratic states are inherently pacifist in nature and will not fight states regardless of regime type (Roy, 2008).

Commented [LS1]: Background to the essay question and

showing off prior knowledge and historical understanding.

Commented [LS2]: Answering the question is vitally

important.

Commented [LS3]: Adding critique to the answer should

happen all the way through the work.

Commented [LS4]: Name the theories that you will be

using to develop the alternative ideas.

Commented [LS5]: Saying how you're going to answer

the question, in this context especially is important.

Commented [LS6]: Linking to previous points in the essay

shows a good understanding of the topic and gives a

narrative flow to your work.

Commented [LS7]: Again, Naming the theories that you

will use to further critique you initial contention is

important.

Commented [LS8]: Don't be afraid to use concepts and

terminology that you have not been taught on the module.

it is ok to give justification and clarification of those

concepts.

Commented [LS9]: This is the first part of the five-part

argument using the framework for analysis. It is important

to set your stall out from the beginning and follow the path

laid out in your introduction.

Commented [LS10]: More back ground and showing

knowledge. This is also the further development of a

concept that was stated in the introduction.

Commented [LS11]: This is the explanation and set up of

the main crux of the argument in this section regarding

political security.

Commented [LS12]: Restating the the argument and

linking back to the question referring to both liberalism and

concepts involved in its function.

Partial preview of the text

Download Security Studies Essay Example and more Assignments Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Introduction

During the cold war era, orthodox explanations of security have occupied primacy in our understandings of the international system (Ikenberry, 2009). Assumptions such as the state of anarchy of the global system and democratic peace theory have been the presiding ideas of the discipline. Of the two orthodox positions, it is the contention of this paper that liberalism best aids our understanding of security and international relations (IR) more generally. Liberalism argues interdependence and cooperation are the best way to understand and achieve security (Ikenberry, 2009). Although it will be argued that liberalism is the most succinct and developed theory to aid our understanding of security, it is not without its critiques and does not adequately explain phenomena such as the state as a form of oppression of society in terms of identity and culture. For these explanations and understandings, we have to turn to theories of postcolonialism (Seth, 2013; Hassan, 2015; Young, 2016) and feminism (Oswald-Spring, 2008) that highlight the issues of those not privy to the democratic state or a state in the Westphalian sense at all (Hobson, 2013 ). This paper will analyse security using Barry Buzan (1991), framework for analysis which incorporates the five sectors of security arguing that liberalism successfully aids our understanding of security within this context most explicitly and effectively. These sectors, whilst not existing in a vacuum, will be tackled independently to show that liberalism has greatly contributed to our understanding of security. In being critical, each sector will also be used to illustrate apparent weaknesses highlighted by other theories as stated above. As stated above, liberalism does not do it all (Ivison, 2002), however, with our understandings of societal and environmental security lacking from the Liberal perspective (Hama, 2017 ). To that end there will be a focus on the postcolonial and human security schools of thought with an occasional interjection from realist and the English schools (Navari, 2016) of thought. For the purposes of this essay the terminology of dependency literature of center-periphery will be used as it is felt that it presents the most suitable descriptors of states and their current positions in the globalised world (Caporaso, 1978). This, in line with liberalist thought, places at the center a core of capitalist economies, which includes previously peripheral states such as South Korea and China with the rest of the developing world constituting the periphery (Caporaso, 1978 ).

Discussion (first section of my argument)

Political security within a liberalist paradigm was the main focus of the 1990s (Hassan, 2015). In the post-cold war era, many of the autocracies that were supported began to crumble or be forcibly changed as peripheral states found the legitimacy of their one-party systems and dictatorships undermined by the collapse of communism that had always provided a complementarity to those with anti-western postures (Buzan, 1991, pp. 439). It was at this time that the burgeoning international community were revitalised in their commitment to cooperation in regard to political security, which was described in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Report as the prevention of government oppression, violations of human rights and increased militarisation (UNDP, 1994 ). This was the platform for the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine which subsequently evolved into a discussion on the right to intervention, on whose authority that intervention could take place and the suspension of sovereignty on humanitarian grounds (Hassan, 2015). This was in light of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) intervention in the Balkans during the 1990s without the consent of the United Nations (UN) (Philpott, 2001 ). This action was deemed illegal but legitimate and led to questions of when it is ok to intervene to uphold the tenets of human rights. This came off the back of a decade of democratisation with not only peripheral states benefitting but European states such as Spain and earlier Portugal becoming democracies for the first time in the post-war period (Dodds, 2007). According to the liberalist school of thought, this expansion of democratic rule across the globe would bring not only a perpetual peace but a positive one (Roy, 2008). This type of peace envisioned not only the end of war, but the active hospitality of state actors and global citizens as democratic nations would not fight (Mousseau, 2005 ). The revival of the democratic peace theory would have significant implications on political security across the globe (Farnham, 2003; Mousseau, 2005; Hobson, 2011). In the first instance the liberal model of institutional cooperation and interdependence gave the United Nations (UN) the unprecedented drive to increase political security in light of the Human Development Report (HDR) 1994. This added impetus and the desire to spread democracy was seen as a good thing for political security (Webb, 2009). The significance of the democratic peace theory is twofold. Firstly, there is the monadic version that argues that democratic states are inherently pacifist in nature and will not fight states regardless of regime type (Roy, 2008). Commented [LS1]: Background to the essay question and showing off prior knowledge and historical understanding. Commented [LS2]: Answering the question is vitally important. Commented [LS3]: Adding critique to the answer should happen all the way through the work. Commented [LS4]: Name the theories that you will be using to develop the alternative ideas. Commented [LS5]: Saying how you're going to answer the question, in this context especially is important. Commented [LS6]: Linking to previous points in the essay shows a good understanding of the topic and gives a narrative flow to your work. Commented [LS7]: Again, Naming the theories that you will use to further critique you initial contention is important. Commented [LS8]: Don't be afraid to use concepts and terminology that you have not been taught on the module. it is ok to give justification and clarification of those concepts. Commented [LS9]: This is the first part of the five-part argument using the framework for analysis. It is important to set your stall out from the beginning and follow the path laid out in your introduction. Commented [LS10]: More back ground and showing knowledge. This is also the further development of a concept that was stated in the introduction. Commented [LS11]: This is the explanation and set up of the main crux of the argument in this section regarding political security. Commented [LS12]: Restating the the argument and linking back to the question referring to both liberalism and concepts involved in its function.

Secondly, there is the dyadic version that argues that democratic states are only peaceful with each other (Roy, 2008 ). The perpetual peace envisioned by Kantian scholars, in the 21st century, is regime dependent (Hobson, 2011). This view is borne out in the justification of United States (US) foreign policy of promoting democracy abroad and regime change in those nations with perceived elevated levels of political insecurity (Patrick, 2008). Whilst this has had dire consequences for peripheral states, those in the centre have enjoyed a bounty of security cooperation and deeper integration of common institutions (Roy, 2008). Rather than promote peace and political security, intervention under the auspices of R2P have destabilised entire regions and dramatically increased the political insecurity of the periphery specifically the middle east (Hassan, 2015). Interventions here have killed more civilians than occupation by terrorist organisations (Record, 2008). There has been increased militarisation of civilian life, political oppression, and countless violations of human rights. Political insecurity has not only increased immediately after intervention but also upon the installation of a democratic government (Record, 2008). As seen in Iraq, the installation of a, mainly, Shia government created structural oppression of the Sunni minority who could not safely participate in elections. This has led to a majority Shia government which has cracked down on Sunni protests and political expressions. This destabilisation causes population displacement and reduces the security of neighbouring states in the region (Odhiambo-Abuya, 2005). Whilst this is a simplified view of the complex and intricate situation in Iraq and the middle east more widely, it highlights the inherent inequalities and western centrism of orthodox security theories such as liberalism (Barkawi, 2013 ).

Conclusion

Looking at security through Buzan’s framework of analysis, it can be stated that Liberalism in international relations has significantly contributed to the understanding of security. Whilst realism rightfully claimed preeminence during the cold war era, it falls short of adequately explaining and aiding in the understanding of the nature of Security and how we achieve it in the globalised international system. This shift from an era of bipolar international order to a one of increased multilateralism and in terms of security and international regime building cannot be explained simply through a traditional realist lens. According to realist thought, alliances are fleeting and serve a purpose during times of war and conflict. The EU (European Union) defies this school of thought by its ever-increasing integration, interdependence, and cooperation especially in terms of security in the form of the Common Foreign and Security policy. As liberalism offers an orthodox understanding of security where the state maintains primacy as the referent object, it is easy to dismiss it as out of date or out of touch. Whilst there is a need to look to the idea of emancipation as security or looking to ecofeminism to understand the gendered nature of the security dynamic in terms of unequal power distribution in relation to society and the environment, it is the consolidation of democracy and liberal ideology that has prevailed over communism and has had the most profound impact on security concerns in center-periphery terms. Commented [LS13]: Developing the key concept of liberalism in terms of political security. What it is and how it works. Commented [LS14]: This is an important part of any work, the critique of your own ideas using alternative theories/schools of thought. Here I am leaning on post- colonial thought and giving a short case study example illustrating the point. Commented [LS15]: Restating the answer/contention of the work this is important to show that you have accomplished your aim. Commented [LS16]: Giving clear example of the way in which your argument is relevant within the current security paradigm. Commented [LS17]: Acknowledge the space for critique and highlight those areas/theories. Ultimately, stress the absolute certainty that your argument is the strongest one in this context. No sitting on the fence.

Security Studies Essay Example, Assignments of Criminology

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Security Studies Essay Example and more Assignments Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Introduction

Discussion (first section of my argument)

Conclusion