1 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL SECURTY

What is security?
Despite the numerous efforts by scholars of security studies to conceptualize 'security' in
a coherent and systematic way, no single, generally accepted definition of security has
been produced.
A laymans definition of security is that security is the protection of life and property of
a person. The concept of security has undergone a transition from traditional
conceptualization to a non-traditional meaning.
Traditionally, security management was the unilateral function of the state especially if
we consider the intellectual view(s) of some political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who
argued that the essence of a state is to provide law and order, which are attained through
(effective) security management.
However, in the contemporary world, the definition of security goes beyond the
traditional military ways of protecting the state against internal and external aggression.
The fact is that since the end of the cold war, security management has assumed a new
dimension. External threats to security resulting from international hostilities and
aggression that characterized the cold war era has been replaced with non-traditional
security threats like information warfare, drug trafficking, nuclear pollution, disease
epidemics like HIV-AIDS, corruption, human trafficking, (internal) insurgency among
others.
The South Africa White Paper on Defence, (1996) defines security as:
an all-encompassing condition in which individual citizens live in freedom, peace and
safety; participate fully in the process of governance; Enjoy the protection of fundamental
rights; have access to resources and the basic necessities of life; and an environment which
is not detrimental to their health and wellbeing.
Security is a matter of high politics; central to government debates and pivotal to the
priorities they establish. Traditionally, the state has been the thing to be secured, what is
known as the referent object, and it (state) has sought security through military might.
The ultimate interest in security studies is to know how referent objects are threatened
and what they can do to survive.
International security consists of the measures taken by nations and international
organizations, such as the United Nations, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These
2 | P a g e

measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and
conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International
security is national security or state security in the global arena.
The content of international security has expanded over the years. Today it covers a
variety of interconnected issues in the world that have an impact on survival. It ranges
from the traditional or conventional modes of military power, the causes and
consequences of war between states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and
ideological conflicts, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, science and
technology, food, as well as threats to human security and the stability of states from
environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and the activities of non-
state actors.
International security, instead, has five dimensions that include human, environmental,
national, transnational, and transcultural security, and therefore, global security and the
security of any state or culture cannot be achieved without good governance at all levels
that guarantees security through justice for all individuals, states, and cultures.
The first dimension refers to human security, a concept that makes the principle
referent object of security the individual, not the state.
The second dimension is environmental security and includes issues like climate
change, global warming, and access to resources.
The third substrate refers to national security, defined as being linked to the states
monopoly over use of force in a given territory and as a substrate of security that
emphasizes the military and policing components of security.
The fourth component deals with transnational threats such as organized crime,
terrorism, and human trafficking.
Finally, the integrity of diverse cultures and civilizational forms tackles the issue of
transcultural security.
National Security is the ability to withstand aggression from abroad. Luciani (1989.
A threat to national security is an action or a sequence of events that:
i. Threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of
life for the inhabitants of a state
ii. Threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the
government of a state or to private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups etc)
within the state.
3 | P a g e

Security in any objective sense measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a
subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked. (Arnold Wolfers,
1962)
Security-insecurity is defined in relation to vulnerabilities-both internal and external-that
threaten or have the potential to bring down or weaken state structures, both territorial
and institutional and governing regimes. (Mohammed Ayoob, 1995)
Security implies both coercive means to check an aggressor and all manner of persuasion
bolstered by the prospect of mutually shared benefits to transform hostility into
cooperation- (Kolodziej, 2005)
Buzan (1984) refers to security as an essentially contested concept, meaning that it
cant and shouldnt be strictly defined, for to do so undermines its durability and
versatility as a term.
Security is taken to be about the pursuit of freedom from threat and the ability of states
and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity against
forces of change, which they see as hostile.
Security can also be understood as the assurance that people have that they will continue
to enjoy those things that are most important to their survival and wellbeing.
The bottom line of security is survival, but it also reasonably includes a substantial range
of concerns about the conditions of existence. Quite where this range of concerns ceases
to merit the urgency of the security label (which identifies threats as significant enough
to warrant emergency action and exceptional measures including the use of force) and
becomes part of everyday uncertainties of life is one of the difficulties of the concept.
In its most basic form, security is simply the absence of physical harm or the threat of
physical harm. It is important to note that Security is gradational rather than
dichotomous: i.e. you can have neither perfect security, nor perfect insecurity, only security
by varying degrees.
Security also involves, and in fact requires, a threat; and threats, in the traditional-
security-sense, are made up of a combination of the capability and intent to do harm or
enact violence.
The concept of international security requires what Barry Buzan (1991) refers to as a
referent object, an agent that is being threatened.
4 | P a g e

Traditionally, the concept of security has been most closely associated with national
security, namely, external military threats to the nation state.
Over time, however, the limitations of this definition grew glaringly apparent. By defining
threats solely in terms of foreign militaries, one misses out on the vast number of
nonmilitary threats of the modern era, such as terrorist groups, transnational criminal
organizations, piracy networks, and the like.
Further, if the threatened agent is defined simply in terms of the nation state, one ignores
the fact that threats and violence can be directed exclusively at certain groups, classes,
families, and even individuals within states, and can, in many cases, emanate from the state
itself.
Considering these problems, security theorists have called for a broadening of what
constitutes a security threat, and an extending or a deepening of who can be
considered threatened.
With regards to who can justifiably be considered a threatened agent, it seems only
reasonable to allow extension down to the individual.
According to Baldwin (1995) and Buzan (1984), geopolitical shifts that have taken place
since the end of the Cold War and the impressive collection of threats that have ridden
in on the most recent wave of globalization have led many to challenge the way we think
about security.
Security has traditionally been conceived and explained through realist and liberalist
lenses/viewpoints. However, new approaches to security are challenging these traditional
approaches to security.
The two scholars argue that in order to face the problems of the twenty-first century, we
need a more comprehensive definition of securityone that encompasses the increasing
number of threats to an increasing number of actors.
The first is globalization, which is defined by Nam (2009) and Brown (2008) as the
widening, deepening, and speeding up of economic, political, and social
interconnectedness among individuals, groups, organizations, states, and other important
actors in the international system.
Nam (2009) argues that globalization is largely a technology-driven phenomenonthe
rapid rate of technological change has facilitated this explosion of connection across the
globe.
5 | P a g e

Second, military might is declining in importance, with the modern era showing a
steady drop in interstate wars and a sharp increase in intrastate conflict. [Harbom and
Wallensteen, 2009].
Security: a contemporary-historical perspective
The concept of security has evolved considerably over the years. Traditionally, security
was defined primarily at the nation-state level and almost exclusively through the military
prism.
This focus on external military threat to national security was particularly dominant
during the Cold War.
In the pre cold war years, security, according to Baldwin (1995: 122) appears to have been
associated with four recurrent themes.
First, security was viewed not as the primary goal of all states at all times but rather as
one among several values, the relative importance of which varied across time and space.
Second, national security was viewed as a goal to be pursued by both military and
nonmilitary techniques of statecraft.
Third, emphasis on caution and prudence with respect to military policy were
commonplace.
Fourth, much scholarly attention was devoted to the relationship between national
security and domestic affairs, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political
processes. This relatively broad notion of security reflects in certain respects the
contemporary debate in security studies on the 'broadening' and the 'deepening' of
security.
Throughout the Cold War era, several different approaches to security were developed in
relation to the conflict between the 'East' and 'West'. The driving force in this debate was
the presence of nuclear weapons which altered international relations and security studies
fundamentally because of its destructive force. For the first time in history weapons were
produced that were capable of destroying the entire world.
Four dominant approaches to security during the Cold War can be identified: balance of
power, bipolar world, containment and deterrence.
The basic notion of the concept of balance of power in international relations is 'the
relationship between the number of actors and the stability of the system'.
6 | P a g e

THE SECURITIZATION DEBATE
According to Buzan, Ole Waever and De Wilde, the question of security is all about
survival. It is when an issue is presented as posing an existential threat to a designated
referent object.
Traditionally, the state and its obsession with military defense from external attacks have
dominated security studies.
The three authors have extended the traditional understanding of security from the
military to the political, economic, societal and environmental sectors.
The dynamics of each of these categories are determined by the securitizing actors and
the referent objects.
According to these authors, a security concern must be articulated as an existential threat
(a threat to the wellbeing/existence of a people).
Securitizing actors are people or institutions who securitize issues (articulate issues as
security threats) by declaring a referent object existentially threatened. These actors
include political leaders, governments, military, civil society and bureaucracies.
The referent objects (e.g. national economies, states, ethnic groups, species, habitats,
political ideologies, refugees, victims of human rights violations) and the threats they face
vary across the five sectors identified by Barry, Ole Weaver and De Wilde. The referent
objects ideally possess a legitimate claim to survival and their existence is ostensibly
threatened.
Securitization is advanced as the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of
the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics.
Thus, securitization can be seen as an extreme version of politicization.
In securitization, an issue or persons are portrayed as existential threats to the referent
object by the securitizing actor e.g. a state or non-state actors such as trade unions. It is
important to note that the move of securitization depends on and reveals the power and
influence of the securitizing actor.
Moreover, the securitizing actor uses speech act to convince the audience how their
existence is being threatened by the issue or person being securitized.
The act of securitization only becomes successful once the relevant audience is convinced
of the existential threat to the referent object.
7 | P a g e

However, what constitutes security is a subjective matter and this may help to
understand why security remains a contested concept.






















8 | P a g e


Dominant Theories of International Security
Here we would like to briefly note some of the dominant theories of security and discuss
how the traditional study of state security has shifted in recent years to include the
security of the individual person, otherwise known as human security. We will also pose
some inquiries that the educator might raise with students concerning security studies.
1. The traditional approach to international security is known as Realism , and this
paradigm dominated the study of security for a long time. Realism can be
considered a theory of international politics. Classical Realism first emerged in the
late 1940s as international relations became a subject of study within universities.
Here is where the term "national interest" first came into political decision-
making. From the perspective of self-interest, states make many decisions based
on how best to secure themselves.
One inquiry an educator could ask:
Do states still make security decisions based on national interests?
What exactly are national interests?
And do these interests ever conflict with other interests both within and
outside of the state?
An additional question could be:
How much do states spend on military expenditures and security compared
to other national expenses?
In the early years of the Realist model, other important terms surfaced such as
"security dilemma" which means the dilemma when one state enhances their own
security at the expense of another state. A security dilemma among states was
averted, at least in theory, by a "balance of power" which became the dominant
strategy during the Cold War.
There are many inquiries, which could be posed here too. These questions could
also be small research projects, such as:
How was the historical buildup of nuclear weapons related to the balance of power
among states?
Does the sale of weapons by states, both conventional and small arms, create a
balance of power or create a security dilemma?
9 | P a g e

2. A second security paradigm emerged in the 1960s known as Pluralism . As the
name suggests, pluralists believed that there were many different influential actors
besides states on the world stage. Many scholars argued that international
relations could no longer assume that all that happens in the world was related to
a balance of power between states. For example, the U.N. and its various programs
began to influence regional and international security policies which sometimes
contradicted national interests. Arguments about morality had also entered the
security debate with Pluralists discussing the amorality of certain national interest
policies.
Questions here include:
What could possibly change the security situation of a state besides a
military dilemma?
What bodies within the U.N. affect global security?
Are there any security or national interest decisions which might be
deemed immoral?
3. A third paradigm for understanding global security was inspired by the theories of
Marxism, which influenced security studies in the 1970s. For the Marxists,
economic concerns and the struggle to control valuable resources were what drove
international politics and security relations. Indeed, in many conflicts around the
world, valuable resources are often exchanged for weapons that are trafficked to
conflict zones. From the Marxist view, global security was often a process of the
worlds powerful exploiting the worlds weak.
There are several questions here such as:
Does the competition for valuable resources affect the balance of security in
the world?
Does military strategy serve global economic interests or national security
interests?
How might economic competition affect the flow of weapons in the world?

4. In the 1990s, a fourth school of thought known as Social Constructivism , emerged
just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. This security
paradigm argued for a more practical understanding, even a more cultural
understanding to international relations and security studies. For example, many
states seemed to defy their own national interested by opting for more regional
10 | P a g e

approaches to security. As more states opted for collective approaches, this
paradigm began to pose questions about the very nature of security in the world.
Some questions:
Are there any states in recent years which have joined together to enhance
their own security?
Moreover, from a practical perspective, who is being secured in this world?
Who is doing the securing?
And what is it to be secure?
Beyond these four dominant paradigms, the mounting criticisms of security
studies began to broaden and deepen the interpretation of security. The
broadening began in the 1990s by acknowledging that there were threats beyond
opposing state militaries. For the traditional Realists, and for many member states
within the U.N. this was a mistake. These states feared that the widening of
security studies to embrace other issues would dilute the important analysis of
military threats alone. They had a point because the 1990s was a brutal decade for
war and collective violence.
Nevertheless, the 1990s also saw the emergence of other threats such as global
warming, the spread of HIV, and resource wars. Furthermore, traditional narrow
conceptions of security by playing states against each other, failed to provide an
adequate paradigm for what happens when a state breaks down through internal
conflict. For example, the largely unforeseen revival of nationalism in the post
Cold War era posed other kinds of security problems, especially when
conventional weapons and small arms were present.
Regarding the broadening security threats, questions which could be posed
include:
Which states in recent years have experienced internal conflicts?
What were these conflicts about? Were these conflicts fuelled by threats
inside or outside the state?
By the end of the 1990s people began to talk about deepening security studies.
Here is where the term Human Security first appears. The concept of Human
Security posits that the main reference point for security should not be the state
but individual people who make up the state. The deepening of security issues was
also a gendered critique of traditional security paradigms. Up until this point,
apart from a feminist critique of violence and war, womens voices were largely
11 | P a g e

silenced on security issues even though women and children were usually the
worst victims of military interventions. From a Human Security perspective, its
how people define their own security that matters. If people are asked what their
security concerns are, their answers that might contradict the state.
At this point, an educator could ask students for their thoughts concerning
Human Security.
Do they believe that the state should define security?
What threats do they feel affect their own security?
Do students believe their ideas about security differ from the State?
And how would they define Human Security?