Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conceptof Securityinthe Theoretical Approaches
Conceptof Securityinthe Theoretical Approaches
net/publication/261177640
CITATION READS
1 27,733
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Fakhreddin Soltani on 30 March 2014.
Fakhreddin Soltani
Post-Doc Researcher, School of History, Politics, and Strategic Studies (SOHPASS)
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: fakhreddinsoltany@gmail.com
Abstract
Among others, Wolfers’ idea on concept of security achieved the most popularity among
political scientists. The core assumption of his idea is lack of threat and fear against values
of a nation. But the assumption of the threat and fear does not carry the same meaning in
the main theoretical approaches. This article is to explain the main approaches of
rationalism, reflectivism and constructivism and their interpretation on concept of security
1. Introduction
Concept of security has been always at the centre of attentions in understanding international relations.
Different definitions are provided for the concept according to the variety of approaches. Among the
definitions, Wolfers’ idea on concept of security achieved the most popularity among political
scientists (Baylis 2001). He argues that the numerous elements such as national characters, preferences,
and prejudices shape overall understanding out of concept of security. But what is the central to
understand the concept is the lack of threat and fear against the values of a nation (Wolfers 1952). But
according to different theoretical approaches in studying international relations, the lack of threat
against the values of nations is interpreted differently.
The mentioned complexity caused developing of the concepts such as security and insecurity
dilemma, value dilemma, collective security, and security regimes that are to interpret and solve the
problem of security (Soltani, Jayum, and Zaid 2010).This article is to explain the main theoretical
approaches on the concept of security. For this purpose, three main approaches on the concept of
security were included, namely rationalism, reflectivism, and constructivism. These approaches have
shaped the nations’ security approaches and perceptions on the concept of security.
2. Rationalism
Rationalism is based on positivism and it argues that social and political phenomena can be explained
in a way that scientists use for explaining natural world, whereby they argue that facts and values are
3. Reflectivism
The assumptions of rationalism were criticized by many reflectivists in the mid 1980s. The central
point of attack was the assumption of “facts” whereby rationalism believes it as something that sits out
the world and waits to be discovered. Meanwhile, reflectivism argues that rationalism ignores
important aspects of international politics by advocating positivist conception of social science and
using it to discover facts through “gold standard” ways of studying. Reflectivism describes the
rationalist theorizing as a problem solving theorizing that has a role in solving specific puzzles but
ignoring important aspects of international politics, such as morality and ideas (Kurki 2008).
Moreover, reflectivism argues that this ignoring is a result of supposing objects of study, such as state
and international system as given and timeless ones. Reflectivism believes that there is no single fact to
be discovered.
The Marxism view of international politics is different from Realism and Liberalism in nature.
On the contrary to Realism and Liberalism that believe states act according to their national interests
without paying attention to their identity and nature, the Marxist theories tend to discover the hidden
truth of the international politics and believe that any attempt to understand world politics must be
based on a broader understanding of the dominant structures of world, i.e. global capitalism. The
Marxist theories believe that the social world needs to be studied as a whole, whereas dividing it into
different fields of study is not helpful (Hobden & Jones, 2001). It is important to note that there are
different Marxist approaches in the international politics, and these include world-system theory,
Gramscianism, critical theory, and new Marxism.
The origins of the world-system theory can be traced back to the Marxist thinkers’ critique of
imperialism, such as Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, Hilferding, and Lenin, i.e. at the start of the
twentieth century (Hobden & Jones, 2001). The most well-known feature of the world-system theory in
the contemporary era is Immanuel Wallerstein who defines the world system as a social system with
boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. In addition, he also argues
that the history has experienced two kinds of the world system which include “world empires” and
“world economies”. The main distinction between the two systems lies in the way of the resources
distribution. In the world empire system, the central power decides on how to distribute the sources
4. Constructivism
The theoretical challenge between rationalism and reflectivism remains in the core of the theoretical
debates of international politics until the beginning of 1990s. Alexander Wendt introduces
constructivism as a strong analyzing way for the events occurring in the world. Constructivism is a
5. Conclusion
Although different meanings have been attributed to the term ‘security’, there has been consensus on
concept of security based on the definition of Wolfers. The feeling of fear is the centre point for the
definition of security, while the lack of threat has been emphasized as the factor that causes the
elimination of feeling of fear. But the lack of fear has been interpreted variously in main approaches of
international relations. Realists believe that the security got its meaning according to anarchical self-
References
[1] Adler, E. (September 1997). "Seizing the Middle Ground:: Constructivism in World Politics."
European Journal of International Relations 3: 45.
[2] Baylis, J. (2001). International and Global Security in Post-Cold War Era. The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introdoction to International Relations. J. Baylis and S. Smit. New York,
Oxford University Press.
[3] Burchill, S. and A. Linklater (1996). Theories of International Relation, Macmillan press LTD.
[4] Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years Crisis. Londan, Macmillan.
[5] Cox, R. W. (1981). "Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory." Millennium-Journal of International Studies 10: 30.
[6] Dunne, T. (2001). Liberalism. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to
international relations. S. Smith and J. Baylis. New York, Oxford University Press.
[7] Dunne, T. and C. schmidt (2001). Realism. Globalization of World Politics. J. Baylis and S.
smith, Oxford University Press.
[8] Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy - Understanding the International Economic
Order. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
[9] Griffits, M. (1999). Fifty Key Thinkers in International relations. London and New York,
Routledge.
[10] Herz, J. (1951). "Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma." World Politics 2(2): 24.
[11] Hobden, S. and R. W. Jones (2001). Marxist Theories of International Relations. The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. J. Baylis and S.
Smit. New York, Oxford University Press.
[12] Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
[13] Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye (2001). Power and Interdependence. New York, Longman.
[14] Krasner, S. D. (1976). "State Power and the Structure of International Trade." World Politics: A
Quarterly Journal of International Relations(3): 30.
[15] Kubalkova, V., N. Onuf, et al. (1998). International Relations in a Constructed World New
York, M. E. Sharp, Inc.
[16] Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in International Relations. New York, Cambridge University
Press.
[17] Lake, D. A. (2001). "Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions." International
Security 2001, 26 (1), 31.
[18] Linklater, A. (December 1980). "Rationality and Obligation in the States-system: the Lessons
of Pufendorf's Law of Nations." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 9: 13.
[19] Mearshiemer, J. (1990). "Back to the future:Instability in Europe after the Cold War."
International security 15(1): 52.
[20] Mearshiemer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power politics. New York, Norton Company.
[21] Morgenthau, H. J. (1972). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York,
Alfred Knopf.
[22] Nye, J. S. (2004). "The Decline of American’s soft Power." Foreign Affaires 83(3): 5.