Download Security Studies Essay Structure and Example and more Assignments Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
Learning Outcomes:
- Demonstrate an understanding of key contemporary security issues
- Show knowledge of key theories, debates and concepts in the field of Security Studies
- Provide an informed opinion of historical contexts surrounding security issues
- Employability: Show evidence of an ability to create a coherent ad-hoc argument A couple of things to mention about this guide; this is an overview of how you CAN answer the questions not how you should. Do what you feel is comfortable and right from your own mind with your own style. This is a link to a video series to help you with general theory - Structural Realism - International Relations (1/7) The summative assignment is a written submission of a 2.000-word essay. Please choose from ONE of the following questions:
- The bipolarity of the Cold War produced a more secure international system. Agree/Disagree
Introduction: 200-300 words Tell us that you understand what the Cold War was and what bipolarity is by giving a brief overview of why the Cold War started and what the resulting bipolarity meant. Definitions are good but showing us that you understand is better. Showing example: Cold War - “In the aftermath of the war, two competing ideologies of how to manage the global system emerged with free market capitalism on one side and state centered communism on the other. It was these two ideologies coupled with the battle of democratic freedoms versus autocratic rule that defined the Cold War.” Bipolarity - “The existence of two superpowers in the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), with competing spheres of influence created a bipolar moment. This resulted in a balance of power where the presence of the two superpowers kept the other in check.” Before you finish your introduction, we should know whether you agree or disagree with the contention that the bipolarity of Cold War produced a more secure international system. You should also outline how you intend on answering the question. What theories you will talk about Realism/Liberalism and what examples you will use such as the nature of conflict since the end of the Cold War (1991) or the different types of threat that now exist in the widening and broadening of security. Main Body/Discussion: 1500 words Start off by reiterating your key point/argument, “I agree/disagree with the contention that a bipolar system is more secure than a unipolar one. This is due to....” Make your first point which could be a conceptual one rather than a physical one such as the nature of security at this time and historically. So, you could argue that security itself hasn’t changed as there is still an anarchic system. In that sense unipolar or bipolar moments have no bearing on security from a structural realist perspective You make a physical point stating that there was just as much conflict then as there is now so that the system is not any safer in either moment. You could also make the point that as there are more referents now due to the widening and deepening of security the world is less secure.
You can look to include elements of democratic peace theory and those statistics show that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other and more likely to support international conventions for cooperation and trade. If you want to argue that anarchy is not mitigated by this, you will need to lean on realist theory that argues that states are in it for themselves, and that anarchy is a given. You need to be the biggest and strongest to survive. Conclusion: 200 words Refer to the question and restate your answer that you gave in your introduction. Summarise your key points and make a closing statement. This statement will be about 2 sentences that will say something like “whilst globalisation makes the world smaller and more interconnected the systems that states operate in stay the same so yield the same outcomes. Unless the system changes nothing else will”
- How does climate change impact the environmental security of populations? Introduction: 200-300 words As always, start with a brief outline of what the question is asking you “climate change is a varied and complex phenomenon that threatens the security of everyone on earth especially Island nations in the Caribbean and the Pacific” It’s important that you talk about the widening and deepening of security with specific reference to the framework for analysis. The framework for analysis covers the five sectors of security; Political, Military, Economic, Societal and Environmental. It is also prudent to mention the idea of securitization and how it helps/hinders action on the environment. List the couple of ways that you will outlining the way in which climate change impacts environmental security. For example, rising sea levels and land erosion in the case of island nations. Main Body/Discussion: 1500 words Go into a bit more detail about the concept of climate a change and what it looks like to be environmentally secure. Link to liberal theory if you like to highlight that environmental insecurity for
one nation in an interdependent, cooperative system impacts the security of another. For example, water shortages and population migration. Talk more about the idea of securitisation and that to get real action on the climate it must be constructed as a security threat, historically it has not been seen as such. International institutions are the only way to work on this issue. Requires global cooperation. Critique that the state is still the primary referent as if it was looked at from a human security perspective, things would be done differently. States are selfish and only considered themselves during industrial revolution in 19th century and now. BRICs nations and their current industrial revolutions, pointing at Bolsonaro and deforestation in Brazil. Conclusion: 200 words Refer to the question and restate your answer that you gave in your introduction. Summarise your key points and make a closing statement. This statement will be about 2 sentences that will say something like “In a system of anarchy, it is difficult to gain a consensus from states acting in their own self- interest. An ideological shift is needed in order to construct an achievable goal of slowing down climate change.
- To what extent does a shift towards human security change traditional understandings of international security? Introduction: 200-300 words As previous examples have shown, you need to state what the question is asking you to do. So, you should discuss the shift from the traditional theories of security and the move to human security theory. This should be done briefly as you will have to go into detail in the main body/discussion section. You should also state whether you believe that the shift towards human security has changed traditional understandings to a great or lesser extent. Main Body/Discussion: 1500 words Again, there needs to be a referral to the widening and deepening of security in a post-Cold War era and what this meant for the global system and interstate relations. You should be referring to the concepts of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and the universal declaration on human rights. The issues of these
You should also critique the idea that immigration isn’t a security threat for example to economic security as it costs the taxpayer 4.7mil per day to house asylum seekers in hotels across the country. Conclusion: 200 words Refer to the question and restate your answer that you gave in your introduction. Summarise your key points and make a closing statement. This statement will be about 2 sentences that will say something like “Threat construction is important to state security as it enables them to effectively respond and maintain security. However, it is important for us to change the referent and look at the impact of state security on human lives.”
- To what extent does security privatization challenge the state’s monopoly on the use of force? Introduction: 200-300 words You need to start off by showing that you understand the state has a monopoly on the use of force and why it has it. Historical ideas of the monarch as sovereign transferred to governments. Similarly to question 4, you need to highlight to what extent you think privatatisation is a challenge to the monopoly on the use of force. Main Body/Discussion: 1500 words Go into more detail regarding the principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello and what the introduction of Private security contractors does to accountability in relation to these principles. You should highlight the case of Blackwater in Iraq. Greater extent: non-state actors waging war diminishes the need for large standing military forces and could result in all the training and expertise lying with private security companies. Causes military insecurity. Lesser extent: Private security contractors still need to get permission from the belligerent states to enter the war zone. You could also refer to private police in Britain Conclusion: 200 words
Refer to the question and restate your answer that you gave in your introduction. Summarise your key points and make a closing statement. This statement will be about 2 sentences that will say something like “security privatisation has a profound impact on conflicts and accountability which directly affects human security on all levels. The safety of our bodies and identities has been left in the hands of multinational corporations which erode the states legitimacy as well as sovereignty”
