SHUBHRA RANJAN IAS STUDY PVT LTD

your strategic partner in IAS preparation

ONLINE PSIR ANSWER WRITING SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND

TEST SERIES 2017
ANSWER KEY: TEST 11

Q1. Compare classical realism with structural realism. Do you think realism
is a scientific explanation of international politics?
Give a brief introduction about realism
Academic study of international relations is overwhelmingly a debate about realism.
Different schools of thought define themselves and their contribution through realism.
Realism is not a single theory. Great diversity and divergences exist between its various
sub-schools. However all realists tend to converge of four central propositions:
1. Group-ism: Politics takes place between and within groups. Today the most
important groups are nation-states and the most important source of in-groupism is
nationalism;
2. Egoism: Individuals and nations are driven principally by narrow self-interest.
3. Anarchy: Absence of world government shapes nature of global politics. It makes IR a
qualitatively distinct domain of political action.
4. Power politics: The egoistic groups interacting in an environment of anarchy make IR
largely a politics of power and security.
Briefly explain classical and structural realism
Classical realism is the name given to all the contribution made by scholars before
publication of Kenneth Waltz’s “Theory of International Politics” in 1979. Most notable
text in it was HANS MORGENTHAU’s “Politics Among Nations” (1948). The central
argument of classical realism is that the behaviour of the state is a reflection of the
egoistic human nature. This makes international politics necessarily as power politics.
Structural realism emerged in 1970’s with publication of WALTZ’s book in 1979.
Structural realists were critical of ‘early’ realism, as according to them, it was not a
scientific analysis of international politics. Inspired by systems theory, neorealism sought
to explain the behaviour of the states in terms of the structure of the international
system.
Discuss similarities and differences between the two traditions
Structural realists borrow some elements of classical realism as a starting point – e.g.
independent states existing and operating in a system of international anarchy. However,
it is a significant departure from classical realist tradition on many important accounts.
Most importantly, structural realists give no account of human nature and don’t attribute
struggle for power between states to human nature. Instead, they ascribe it to structure
of international system, which compels the states to act in self-interest and rely on self-
help for their security and survival.
Another difference is with respect to role of human agency. Waltz’s structural realism is
deterministic. He believes that great powers manage the international system
automatically, as the system compels them to act in a way to uphold national interests.
Therefore he places no regard to human agency in decision-making. Classical realists, on
the other hand, argue that the statespersons ought to manage the international system
properly to maintain international order. They can be criticized when they fail to manage
it properly.
Conclude first part on following lines
Both the traditions have made important contributions in the theoretical development of
the realist school of thought. However, in order to provide more complete explanation of
international politics, there has been an attempt to fuse systems analysis of structural
realism with a unit-level approach of classical realism within one analytical framework.
This approach has been called as neo-classical realism or post-neorealism.
Evaluate the realist claim of its theory as scientific
Influenced by positivism of interwar period, post war realists, especially since
Morgenthau’s book, have tried to frame an objective and scientific theory of international
politics, which is value-free and based on empirical analysis of data and facts.
Morgenthau believed objective laws, rooted in unchanging human nature, governed
politics, like society in general. Kenneth Waltz tried to use systems theory in order to rid
the realist analysis from normative issues like national interests and state security.
However the realist claim of successfully constructing a scientific theory has been
contested by post-positivist schools of thought like social constructivists, post-
structuralists and feminists.
The social constructivists argue that pure, objective observation of ‘facts’ is not possible.
‘Reality’ is not external to the observer: there are thousand ways of looking at the real
world. IR theorists are an integrated part of the world they study. In that sense, theorists
are insiders, not outsiders.
The post-structuralists/post-modernists provide the strongest criticism of the positivist
methodology adopted by realism. Knowledge is not, and can’t be neutral. Realists make
certain assumptions and create certain images of reality. We always need to critically
discuss the assumptions and claims made by any theory, because there is no single, final
truth ‘out there’ that can be ‘discovered’. This post-modernist attitude is defined as
‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’ in the words of LYOTARD.
Inspired by post-positivist approach, the feminists are also critical of he possibility of
finding a universal and objective foundation for

knowledge, which realists like Morgenthau claims is possible. They believe that
knowldege is socially constructed: since it is language that transmits knowledge, the use
of language and its claims to objectivity must continually be questioned. Scholars like
EVELYN FOX KELLER argue that objectivity itself is associated with masculinity. J. ANN
TICKNER in her work ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A feminist
reformulation’ (1988) claimed that Morgenthau while giving his 6 principles of political
realism uses a vocabulary that contains many of the words associated with masculinity.
She reformulated Hans Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism to show how
seemingly objective laws in fact reflect male values, rather than female ones. 

Q2. “Marxist scholars perceive the emphasis on state to state relations as
obscuring the more fundamental dynamics of global class relations” – Do you
agree? Substantiate your views with appropriate arguments.
Briefly explain the context of the given statement
The given statement highlights Marxist critique of the basic assumptions made by the
mainstream IR approaches – liberalism and realism – that the state is the central actor in
international relations. For Marxists, the most important feature of world politics is that it
takes place in a world capitalistic economy. Its not the states but classes that are the
most important actors in this world economy and the behaviour of all other actors is
ultimately explicable by class forces. Thus states, multinational corporations, and even
international organisations represent the dominant class interests in the world economic
system.
Discuss Marxist approach to study international relations with respect to its
criticism of established mainstream theories
Marxism is a materialistic theory: it is based on the claim that the core activity in any
society concerns the way in which human beings produce their means of existence.
Economic production is the basis for all human activities, including politics. Hence in
order to understand issues surrounding international politics, it is necessary to
understand the nature of world economy.
The mainstream IR approaches focus on issues that concern states – war and peace,
conflict and cooperation, international aid operations – as their main subject of study.
However, Marxism shifts the attention from international politics to the international
political economy. Marxists argue that states are not autonomous. Ruling class
interests drive their actions. By studying the class relations we can understand the
behaviour of states. The struggles among states, for example, should be seen in the
economic context of competition between capitalist classes of different states. Hence for
Marxists, class conflict is more fundamental than conflict between states.
Marxist approach also points out that the states have limited manoeuvrability in world
capitalist economy. The structure of global capitalist system has an enormous influence
on those events. Hence, merely studying the state-to-state relations is a futile exercise.
An understanding of world politics must be based on a broader understanding of the
processes operating in world economic structure, which is capitalistic in nature.
Marxist theorists conceive world politics as the setting in which class conflicts are played
out. Within the world capitalistic economy, the powerful and wealthy continue to prosper
at the expense of the powerless and the poor. This leads to gross inequality in the world.
Hence relative prosperity of the few is dependent on the destitution of the many.
This should be the central focus of study, which is obfuscated by merely focusing on
inter-state relations and politics.
Give criticisms and shortcomings of Marxist analysis
The realists have criticized the Marxist view of the state as ‘reductionist’, that is, it
reduces the state to a simple tool in the hands of the ruling classes with no will of its
own. Realists claim that states are strong actors in their own right. They embody powerful
institutions, they control the monopoly over means of violence and they have substantial
economic resources. It is simply wrong to view states as a mere instrument for others.
The post-colonial theorists highlight that Marxist approach, like other mainstream IR
theories, is Eurocentric. It doesn’t consider the specific concerns of countries in the
‘Global South’. They talk about the need for the countries in the South to develop their
own theories to highlight the unequal relations between the countries of the North and
the South. This can only be done through a process of intellectual decolonisation.
GAYATRI SPIVAK has raised a pertinent point in this context: ‘Can the subaltern speak?’.
Give concluding remarks
Beginning from Marx, all Marxist scholars are committed to the cause of emancipation
of the under-privileged or the ‘have-nots’. Marxist theory in this respect is an
emancipatory theory. The purpose of Marxist theory is not merely to explain the world we
live in; rather it is to change it to make it better. Marx himself argued that ‘philosophers
hitherto have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change
it.’ By shifting the focus from inter-state relations to global class relations, Marxist
theories highlight inequality and exploitation of the weaker class. This was further
developed by Critical Theorists like ANDREW LINKLATER, who suggests that we must
dilute the territorial boundaries of the states and replace it with new moral boundaries,
like civil society networks, as a way to deal with the problem of war and power politics.
However, Marxist theory is reductionist. It does adequately address the multifarious
nature of global politics.

Q3. “While various theories may lead to more or less compelling conclusions
about international relations, non is defiantly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.” – Elaborate
Define theory and discuss its significance
We look at the world through a specific set of ‘lenses’. Theories can be understood as
these lenses. Theory not only helps us in describing events, but also helps in explaining
why they happened. They do this by simplifying a complex phenomenon based on certain
assumptions and hypotheses.
The IR theories structure our view of the world. ‘Facts’ alone can’t help us make sense of
the world we live in or to answer some of the most fundamental questions that concerns
IR scholars. We need theories to help us choose which facts to focus on and how these
facts must be interpreted. Hence, theories help us know which things matter and which
don’t.
Elaborate upon the conclusions about international relations arrived at by
different theoretical traditions
All theories are based on certain values and often they also contain visions of how we
should see the world. Theories help us in thinking systematically about the world.
The mainstream theories, like realism and liberalism, are basically an ‘explanatory
theory’. They seek to explain the events in IR in terms of causality. The Neo-realist
scholars depict international system as ‘anarchical’ where self-interested states are the
most important, if not the sole, actors. Based on these assumptions, realists view IR
essentially as power politics.
Liberalism, on the other hand, has a more benign and progressive view of international
affairs. They have great faith in human reason and are convinced that rational principles
can be applied to international affairs. Liberals believe that conflict and war are not
inevitable; when people employ their reason they can achieve mutually beneficial
cooperation not only within states but also across international boundaries.
Constructivism is an ‘interpretative theory’. Constructivists emphasise upon the
importance of ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’, rather than on discovering some
immutable objective facts that explain natural laws of society or politics. They believe
human beings rely on ‘understanding’ each other’s actions and assigning ‘meaning’ to
them. A theory must try to uncover these inter-subjective beliefs. In this regard,
constructivism is also an empirical approach to the study of international relations.
However, unlike the positivist mainstream theories that believe in mechanical conception
of reality, constructivists focuses on the inter-subjective ideas that define international
relations, like shared beliefs, conceptions and assumptions. It argues that a further
development of basic concepts like power, security, national interests, etc. is needed in
order to allow full analysis of ideas.
Post-structuralists view theory is less a ‘tool for analysis’ and more of an ‘object of
analysis’. They point out that all theories are biased and serve the interests of their
proponents by presenting their assumptions and generalisations as ‘truth’ and ‘common
sense’. They believe, “all theories are for someone and for some purpose.” They view
mainstream IR theories as ways of concealing, or of legitimising, the power interests of
the dominant groups.
Conclude on following lines
All theoretical traditions have their strengths and limitations. In this light, no single
theory can be labeled as the ‘best’, ‘true’ or ‘right’ theory. No single theoretical approach
has clearly won the day in IR. All major theoretical traditions are actively employed in the
discipline today to capture different aspects of a very complicated historical and
contemporary reality. Post-structuralists are of the opinion that proliferation of different
theories in IR is highly desirable; a large number of competing views opens up and
enhances our understanding of the subject.

Q4. Is the concept of balance of power still relevant in the 21st century? Give
arguments in support of your views.
Introduction: Explain the basic concepts related to balance of power.


Balance of power is considered as fundamental law of International politics at par with

Newton’s theory of gravity . Balance of power is based on realist assumptions and is
based on the interactions between states in Europe originating gin 17th century
Westphalian world order.


Balance of power works in a situation of multi polarity. It is applicable in a regional

context. The basic assumptions behind this theory are that international actor is absent,
international politics is anarchical, nations are interested in protection of national
interest. 



For the sake of protection on national interest, nations are ready to go for war. Nobody is
allowed to gain preponderance of power. If any actor tries to gain preponderance, other
nation states will combine to check the rise of power.


Strategies adopted for balance of power include arms race, alliances, counter alliances,
partitioning of territory and creation of a buffer zone.
Discuss the relevance of balance of power: Why there is a question mark?
Liberal scholars since the time of Woodrow Wilson have been sceptical of balance of
power as a means for ensuring peace among states. Hence Wilson had proposed
collective security as a alternative. 


According to liberals, balance of power inoculates against measles but give raise to
plague. After the 2nd world war there was rise of bipolarity and emergence of nuclear
deterrence. Hence the ideal conditions for the operation of balance of power have ceased
to exist.


Scholars like T V Paul, Michael Fortman and John Wirtz in their book titled balance of
power: Theory and Practice in 21st century have analysed the relevance of balance of
power and have concluded that there is a little possibility of operationalising the
traditional balance of power politics because of the emergence of unipolarity against
single super power. There is no option of hard balancing and nations can go only for soft
balancing. They also mention the concept of asymmetrical balancing by the nation states
against non state actors.


Conclusion:
Even though scholars question the relevance in 21st century because of the changed
context yet no rational actor can over look the relevance of balance of power as David
Hume has suggested that balance of power will remain relevant till the time common
sense remain relevant.

Q5. “It has been argued that the absence of war between democratic states
comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international
relations.” Do you think democratic peace theory can provide alternative to
power politics?
Briefly give an account of realist and liberal view of international relations
The realist scholars view international relations largely as a politics of power and security.
Liberal tradition, on the other hand, is more progressive. It believes relations among
states can be cooperative and peaceful. Liberal scholars, especially those belonging to the
school of ‘republican liberalism’, believe that the external behavior of a state is crucially
influenced by its political culture and the constitutional make-up of the state.
Explain democratic peace theory
MICHAEL DOYLE in his paper “Liberalism and World Politics” (1986) argued that autocratic
or authoritarian states are inherently militaristic and aggressive, whereas democratic
states are naturally more peaceful, especially in their dealings with other democratic
states. This view is known as democratic peace theory.
Doyle gives three arguments to support the claim that democracy leads to peace with
other democracies: The first is the existence of domestic political cultures. It
encourages peaceful international relations because citizens will pressurize their
government to not advocate or support wars; The second argument is that democracies
hold common moral values which lead to the formation of a ‘zone of peace’ based on
common moral foundations and attitudes; Finally, peace between democracies is
strengthened though mutually beneficial ties of economic cooperation and
interdependence. These are the foundation stones upon which their peaceful relations
are based.
Give empirical justification in support of the claim
Liberal theorists and policy-makers alike are highly optimistic about the long-term world
peace through progress towards a more democratic world. This optimism is the basis of
liberal conviction to promote democracy worldwide, for in so doing, they believe, they are
promoting peace. Liberals not only claim theoretical support to justify their belief. They
also point towards strong empirical evidence: the fact that there has never been a war
between two democratic nation-states. Accordingly, they have associated the general
advance of democratisation with the creation of ‘zone of peace’, composed of collection
of mature democracies in places such as Europe, North America, Japan and Australia, as
opposed to ‘zones of turmoil’ that are found elsewhere in the world.
Give criticism of the claim
The critics of democratic peace thesis argue that there is evidence that goes contrary to
the liberal claim. They point out that during cold war the United States was hostile and
even aggressive towards some southern democracies, e.g. the Dominican Republic in the
early 1960’s or Chile in the early 1970’s. It remains to be seen whether the end of the
Cold War will also put an end to such divisions and mistrust between the democracies of
the North and the South.
The realist scholars also claim that spread of democratisation in states doesn’t transform
the anarchical structure of the international system in any significant way. As long as
anarchy prevails, there is no escape from self-help and the security dilemma. There is
always the possibility that today’s friend might very well turn out to be tomorrow’s
enemy, whether or not they are a democracy. Hence, liberal optimism is unwarranted.
The liberal scholars have also completely disregarded the possibility of retreat to soft
authoritarianism or rise of demagogic leaders even in established liberal democracies,
especially during the times of crises. This puts a big question mark over the liberal
optimism of ‘end of history’ and liberalism as the end point of mankind’s ideological
evolution.
Democratic peace theory has also been misused to provide legitimacy to liberal
interventionism by the US to introduce democracy even at gunpoint. Such attempts are a
threat to peace rather than building peace as happened in case of Syria.
Argue how far do you think democratic peace theory can provide an alternative to
power view of politics
Democratic peace theory is an important tool, both, for explaining the reason for
existence of peaceful relations and cooperation between western nations and to provide a
roadmap to bring about a progressive change in international relations. However, it is by
no means an iron law of international politics that is universally true under all conditions.
Republican liberals need to specify the exact way in which democracy leads to peace and
they need to sort out in more precise terms when there is a democratic peace between a
group of democracies and why.
Q6. Examine the relevance of nuclear deterrence in the age of complex
interdependence. What is the role of norms in nuclear non-proliferation?
Explain nuclear deterrence
Deterrence is a realist approach to peace. It means discouraging an aggressor to act, by
instilling doubt or fear in their mind about the possible consequences of the action.
THOMAS SHELLING describes nuclear deterrence as the idea that if there were even a
small risk that conventional attack would cause an opponent to escalate to nuclear
conflict in response, that risk would deter the conventional attack.
Realists consider nuclear deterrence as the most important factor behind the non-
occurrence of Third World War. They argue that the US-USSR rivalry, during the post-
second world war era, largely remained ‘cold’ because of the possession of nuclear
weapons by both sides. It deterred aggression because of the logic of ‘mutually assured
destruction’ (MAD). Both realized that in the event of a nuclear war, there would be no
‘winner’. The cost of the ‘victory’ far exceeds the potential ‘benefits’, rendering nuclear
war infeasible.
Explain complex interdependence
KEOHANE and NYE Jr. gave the ‘complex interdependence’ theory in late 1970’s in their
book “Power and Interdependence” to explain the state of post war world order. The
scholars argue that the post-war ‘complex interdependence’ is qualitatively different
from earlier and simpler kinds of interdependence, as now international relations is not
merely, or even primarily, state-to-state relations as realists believe. Various
transnational actors are increasingly playing an important role in driving international
relations.
Explain how complex interdependence has rendered nuclear deterrence ineffective
Such structural changes have significant consequences in international politics. The
scholars argue that in contrast to the previous era of ‘simpler interdependence’, the ‘low
politics’ of economics and social welfare has higher priority over the ‘high politics’ of
security and survival under complex interdependence of post war era. Because of this, the
military force and nuclear deterrence is a less useful, and even irrelevant, instrument of
policy. Power resources, other than military ones are of increasing importance today, for
example, negotiating skills.
Complex interdependence clearly implies a far more friendly and cooperative
relationship among states. According to Keohane and Nye, complex interdependence is
most evident in Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand: in
short the industrialised, pluralist countries. The relevance of complex interdependence
grows as modernisation unfolds, and it is thus especially applicable to the relations
between advanced Western countries.
Also, in the era of complex interdependence the biggest challenge to security of the
states is not from each other. Rather it is from asymmetric actors like global terrorist
groups. These groups can’t be deterred through nuclear weapons possessed by powerful
states, rendering them ineffective as instruments of state security.
Conclude first part on following lines
Notwithstanding the optimistic and progressive vision that complex interdependence
paints, possibility of military conflict and hence nuclear deterrence is not completely
irrelevant.
Keohane and Nye have themselves highlighted the continued relevance of realist belief
regarding possible conflict among states. They argue, “it is not impossible to imagine
dramatic conflict or revolutionary change in which the use of military force over an
economic issue or among advanced industrial countries might become plausible. Then
realist assumptions would again be reliable guide to events.”
For this reason complex interdependence is considered a realist strand in liberal theory.
They believe that relations between states cannot be explained through anarchy alone,
they are rather in the form of a cobweb. There is a simultaneous existence of cooperation
in economic areas while balancing in other strategic areas.
Examine the role of norms in nuclear non-proliferation
Notwithstanding the fact that nuclear weapons continue to be regarded by realists as
effective tool of deterrence and security, the nuclear proliferation has been rather slow,
while some regions have even resolved to make their region as nuclear-weapons free
zone. Social constructivists prescribe the role of taboos, norms and epistemic
communities to explain the reason behind nuclear non-proliferation. According to NINA
TANNENWALD, nuclear weapons haven’t been used, not only because of the assured
mutual destruction, but also because of the role of norms and values.
USA could not use nuclear weapons to resolve its conflicts with Vietnam or Iran because
of the stigma that has been attached to the use of nuclear weapons. Sigma has acted as
moral deterrence. She has mentioned factors for the growth of norms and taboos such as
global movements against nuclear weapons, activism by UN, etc. Moreover, norms likes
No First Use; no use against non-nuclear weapon states; and the use of nuclear of nuclear
weapons as a last resort have also played a role in nuclear non-proliferation. Intellectuals,
policy makers have all contributed in the growth of consciousness, evolution of norms
and treaties like NPT, which have played a role in stopping nuclear proliferation.

Q7. a) Collective security

Explain collective security concept
Collective security refers to an arrangement where each state in the system accepts that
‘the security of one is the concern of all’. All stakeholders agree to join in a collective
response to aggression. It is primarily a mechanism to maintain order and stability by
securing independence of states and avoiding aggressive unilateralism to change status
quo.
Contrast it with concept of ‘balance of power’ and ‘collective defense’
The origin of collective security comes from balance of power concept of ‘power is an
antidote to power’. The two share certain assumptions such as the existence of
possibilities of aggression and war in a state-centric world and the effectively using
collective effort to check aggressive designs. However, balance of power is a realist
approach, which considers security as a concern of the state and self-help as the only
means to achieve it. However, collective security emerges from liberal attempt to make
security a collective concern.
Collective security can also be contrasted with an alliance system of security called
‘collective defense’, where a number of states join together, usually as a response to a
specific external threat. Even though both are militaristic concepts, but collective security
calls for universal membership and non-discriminatory treatment. Some countries like
the USA are of the opinion that collective defence in the form of NATO is the practical way
of operationalising the goals of collective security, which is embedded in the UN charter.
However, India believes that collective defence undermines and defeats the very purpose
of collective security.
Give examples of collective security
The first experiment of collective security was under the League of Nations, which failed
due to many inherent weaknesses. Since even though the moral rhetoric at its creation
was idealist, in practice states remained imprisoned by self-interests. Next attempt was
through UN. However, with the ideological rivalry between the two superpowers,
collective security procedures could not be operationalised. Only after the cold war
ended, the collective security could be enacted for the first time during the 1990-91 Gulf
War.
Conclude on the following lines
However, even now the UNSC remains divided between P3 and P2, which is causing a
hindrance to resolution of issues such as Syrian crises. Though collective security has
immense potential to promote peaceful resolution of conflicts, however lack of
cooperation and great power rivalry has rendered collective security as a failed concept.

b) Security community
Define security community
Security community is a term coined by the sociological liberal scholar KARL DEUTSCH in
his book “Political community and the North Atlantic area” (1957) in order to explain the
possibility of having peaceful relations among nations. Deutsch argued that peaceful
relations are established among societies that have a high degree of transnational ties
between them. He described security community as a region where ‘a group of people
which has become “integrated”.’ Integration means that a ‘sense of community’ has been
achieved; people have come to agree that their conflicts and problems can be resolved
‘without resort to large-scale physical force.’
List the significance and conditions for establishment of a ‘security community’
region
Security community is not merely a region of peace, understood in terms of by absence of
war. It is a region where people not only don’t consider each other as a source a threat,
but rather as a source of security. They develop shared understanding about common
threats and challenges to their region. in a security community, states perceiving
common threats construct collective identities against a commonly perceived/identified
enemy, which in turn help overcome security dilemma.
Security community as a concept is an attempt to find a remedy for the insecurity of
states in international arena. It is thus related to the concept of collective security, in the
sense that security communities aim to provide collective security for members.
Deutsch lists a number of conditions that are conducive to the emergence of security
communities: increased social communication; greater mobility of persons; stronger
economic ties; and a wide range of mutual human transactions.
Give examples of security community
According to Deutsch, such a community has emerged among the consolidated liberal
democracies of Western countries in the North Atlantic area. It is extremely unlikely –
indeed it is unthinkable – that there will be violent conflict among any of these countries
in the future. In the recent times, even ASEAN could be imagined as evolving into a
‘security community’.
Conclude by giving criticism of the concept
The concept of security community has always been more celebrated than investigated.
It is a progressive approach to ensure peace and stability, than alternative concepts like
Balance of Power. However, the concept requires further development as it has never
generated a robust research agenda. This notion is helpful in emphasising that peace is
more than merely the absence of war. However, it is less precise than it ought to be as an
effective research tool.

Q8. Explain securitisation and give Berry Buzan’s view on the concept of
security in 21st century.
Briefly explain the concept of security
“Security” is the fundamental value of human life and a fundamental good. Security or
survival is precondition for human life. Security has usually been thought as a particularly
pressing issue in international politics because, while the domestic realm is ordered and
stable, by virtue of the existence of a sovereign state, the international realm is anarchical
and therefore potentially threatening and unstable. According to BARRY BUZAN, “security
policy has to deal with series of moral dilemmas to which there can be no easy solutions.”
Discuss securitisation theory
The concept of securitisation is associated with Copenhagen School. It has gained
prominence in present times. According to this theory, “security is a speech act.” It means
that through speech, you can turn something into a security threat. Through speech, any
issue can be brought from sphere of normal politics into realm of emergency.
Securitisation denotes a process whereby state actors transform any subject into matter
of security. It is an extreme version of politicisation, which enables extra-ordinary means
to be used in the name of security. Issues that are securitised may not be essential to
objective survival of state, but through the use of speech act, one may be successful in
portraying an issue an an existential threat.
The securitised subject receives disproportionate amount of attention and resources. A
case in point is the issue of terrorism in India. Even though lesser casualties occur per
annum due to terrorist attacks than natural disasters or diseases but since terrorism has
been securitised by the state, counter-terrorism receives disproportionate attention and
allocation of resources. Similarly, European states have securitised ethnic relations,
immigration and refugee issue in the recent times.
Discuss Barry Buzan’s view on the concept of security
In the article titled “New Patterns of Global Security in 21st Century” (1991), Barry Buzan
discusses his conception of security as “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. The bottom line of security
is survival, but it also reasonably includes a substantial range of concerns about the
conditions of existence.”
His views on security can be stated as follows:
1. Realist view on security, as “derivative of power”, is too narrow and reduces the
complex concept of security to a mere synonym of power. It has become less relevant
in 21st century. This view could be considered relevant during the period of the World
Wars, where states seemed to be in a constant struggle for power. However, in the
post-Cold War era, the concept of Security has become much more multifaceted and
complex.
2. He emphasises on how states securitize threats, which has become all the more
relevant in 21st century.
3. He stresses the need to consider both micro as well as macro security issues. In this
regard, Buzan insists, ‘security can’t be isolated for treatment at any single level.’
4. Buzan emphasizes the integration of five sectors of security – political, military,
economic, societal and environmental, in order to holistically understand the
multidimensional nature of the term.
Significance of his views
Buzan’s view on security has broadened the framework of security to include many
different dimensions apart from military threat, which were earlier not considered to be
part of the security puzzle. His approach is more holistic, giving a more complete
understanding of the complexities involved in conceptualising security.