IR358 FINAL NOTES

1-MIGRATION AND REFUGEES

What Is Migration?

Non-Refoulement: Governments cannot turn refugees, asylum seekers back without their consent.

Migration: The movement of individuals from one place to another. Legal status (marriage,work)

Why Do People Migrate?

Asylum / Work / Education / Family Reunification / Politics

Classification

Forced Migration (Refugee Movements)

Voluntary Migration (Economic Migration)

What Are Refugees?

Any person having well founded fear of persecution (race,political opinion, religion) + without
protection of their country can become refugee.

1951 Refugee Convention

Common Destinations For Reguees

US / Canada / Nordic Countries / Turkey

Is There A Link Between Migration And Terriorism?

Yes: terrorism --> migration ---> terriorism

No: migraiton is one variable / poor governence / political unrest

How Migration Influences Foreign Policy?

1-Join political groups forbidden in home country

2-Publicize the grivances, agendas and demands of these banned groups.

3-Criticize of the home governments actions and policies

4-Become a voice of suppressed oppositioon

5-Raise funds

6-Lobbying

7-Enlist the support of the host government and population

Recently, migration has gained prominence on the international agenda because of its increasing scale and the
consequences such movements have for inter - national affairs, including the security concerns of states.
Increasing international population movements can be attributed to several factors. First, the ubiquitous nature
of state control makes any international movement a matter of concern to at least two and sometimes more
states. Second, the world’s population is still growing. Third, globalization has brought about a revolution in
communications and transportation that has made people aware of vastly differing conditions and
opportunities in other parts of the world, as well as making travel to those areas easier.

EUROPEAN REFUGEE CRISIS: In 2015–16, Europe experienced mass migration on a scale not seen since the
Second World War. In 2015, according to UNHCR estimates, around a million people arrived in Europe, most
crossing from Turkey to Greece and about 150,000 arriving by sea in Italy. In 2016 the number went down to
about 365,000 arrivals, falling sharply after the deal between Turkey and the European Union for Turkey to take
back migrants.

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the number of international migrants in the
world has increased from just 75 million in 1960 to 150 million in 2000, to 191 million in 2005, to 214 million
people in 2015, making up 3.1 per cent of the global population, or, if they were a country, the fifth most
populous country in the world.

The refugee reminds us that not only are some states not doing their job by protecting their people, but they
can also constitute threats to the human security of their own population. It does not make the positive case for
migration, but this should not be taken to mean that migration has a negative impact on sending and receiving
countries, or their security. Migration can be economically beneficial to both sending and receiving countries
and for the migrant. Sending countries can benefit hugely from remittances that migrants send home, and from
the easing of pressure on employment, housing, and other social facilities.

The receiving country benefits from availability of labor at reasonable cost, increasing national productivity and
economic growth. It may also acquire sorely needed highly trained and skilled personnel, such as doctors and
software engineers, without having to invest in their skills. Host countries become home to migrants with a
variety of talents, from business acumen to sporting prowess, to musical, literary and theatrical abilities, and
can become vibrant, open, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-faith societies with a flourishing cultural life.
Migrants can contribute to building bridges between communities at home and strengthening ties with their
countries of origin abroad.
MIGRATION AS A SECURITY ISSUE

Since the end of the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the study of migration has become
firmly embedded in international relations. The 9/11 attacks dramatically reaffirmed the role that international
migration can play in international relations generally, and in security issues. Immigration coming under the
supervision of the Department of Homeland Security. The case was further strengthened by the Madrid
bombings (11 March 2004) and the London tube bombings (7 July 2005), all involving either migrants or citizens
of immigrant origin. It is now widely accepted in many Western states that the public policy process should
explicitly treat immigration and security as intertwined and bring a security focus to bear on matters of control
and management of population movement.

In short, migration can pose a threat to the people and governments of both sending and receiving states, and
to relations between these two countries. It can turn civil wars into international conflicts, and it can cause the
spread internationally of ethnic conflict and civil unrest. Migration can also play a role in facilitating terrorism.
Can weaken existing power structures and institutions within countries, as well as threatening cultural identities
and social cohesion.

MIGRATIONS CATEGORIZED

All international migrations can be divided into two categories based on the motivation behind the migration:
involuntary or forced. Involuntary or forced international migration refers essentially to refugee flows, where for
reasons of natural disaster, war, civil war, ethnic, religious, or political persecution people are forced to flee their
homes. The flight of thousands of Afghans to Pakistan and Iran since 1979 or the desperate journeys of black
African Sudanese from their homes in Darfur would fall into this category. Voluntary migrations can be further
subdivided into three main categories. The first is legal permanent settler migration of the kind that populated
the United States or created the Asian and Afro-Caribbean minorities in Britain. This kind of migration has
decreased most sharply in recent years. The second kind is legal temporary migration and includes the bulk of
the voluntary migrations. This category would include the movement of people for education, business,
tourism, and employment, such as the temporary workers admitted to the Gulf States to service the oil-
powered economic boom in construction and other sectors. The third kind of voluntary migration is the illegal
or irregular migration of people from one country to another, which may be temporary or permanent. This
would include, for example, the clandestine movements of Mexicans and others across the long US–Mexico
border.

Sovereignty is regarded as the defining characteristic of a state in the international system. One aspect of the
exercise of sovereignty has always been a state’s inviolable right to control who will enter and exit its territory.
About free or voluntary migration, states have authority to decide which individuals to accept as entrants or
immigrants. They base their decisions on various criteria including the labor and skills needed by their
economies and cultural and ethnic similarities with incoming migrants. But when it comes to involuntary or
refugee movements, there are some limited constraints on a state’s authority in the form of the obligations
imposed on them by the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.

In practice the convention commits states to ensure that no asylum seeker is sent back to any country where
they are likely to face danger to life or liberty without their application for refugee status being given due
consideration. None of these agreements or practices guarantees anyone the right to refugee status, only the
right to seek it. This is because in practice there is total acceptance in international society of the right of every
sovereign state to decide for itself who should be allowed entry to its territory.

1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION: The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal
document in defining who is a refugee, their rights, and the legal obligations of states
For an asylum seeker to be recognized as a refugee is a political decision and depends to some extent on the
relationship between the sending and receiving countries. For instance, during the Cold War, anyone who
managed to escape from any Eastern Bloc country to the West was welcomed with open arms. The one
inevitable long-term consequence of international population movements is the creation of ethnic minority
communities in the receiving countries.

MIGRATION AND VIOLENT CONFLICT

Refugee flows by their very nature are the result of conflict, social and political upheaval and turmoil. It is
therefore hardly surprising that they may sometimes carry that instability with them to the host country. In
such circumstances, refugee flows are both a consequence of some sort of conflict, violence, or repression as
well as themselves becoming the cause of conflict between their country of origin and the receiving state.

The receiving state will try to bring about a change in the situation or policies of the sending country
government that led to the exodus or, failing that, try to bring about a complete change of government there.
This usually tends to lead to some sort of conflict between the sending and receiving states. Often, receiving
states get involved in the conflict in the sending state, threatening to arm or arming the refugees, and
sometimes deploying their own armed forces.

Events in Britain over the last two decades have illustrated that it does not take many refugees to have a
negative impact on the security of the receiving country.

British Muslim men blowing themselves up on London’s transport network on 7 July 2005, killing 51 members
of the public and injuring hundreds more. In the aftermath of 9/11 attention in the West has focused on the
potential security threat from some among their Muslim residents and citizens of immigrant origin.

A major fear was that among the thousands of Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan refugees arriving on European shores
were members of the so-called Islamic State group.

MIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY

Immigrant or ethnic minority communities, formed by labor or refugee migration, can play a significant
independent political role in world politics. By the same token they challenge the ability of host states to
exercise independent control over the direction of their own foreign and domestic policy. Migrant communities
tend to maintain a strong connection with their home countries, and turbulence or instability in those societies
can find expression within the migrant community. When this happens, these communities will become
involved in a range of political activities targeted at their home country.

They take advantage of their unique status, being outside their home country and not subject to its jurisdiction,
to take those actions that people living in their country of origin cannot, owing to fear of arrest, persecution, or
violence. They can join political groups pro - scribed in the home country, publicize the grievances, agendas and
demands of these banned groups, be critical of home government actions and policies and become the voice of
a suppressed opposition. They can try to draw attention to the problems in their country of origin, perhaps
causing embarrassment to the home governments.

Home country governments respond to all this offshore activity by putting pressure on the host state
government to restrict them, and not allow minorities voice and succor. But if the migrant communities are
acting within the laws of the host state, there may be little the host government can easily and legally do to
restrict their activities.

EXAMPLE: The case of the Sikh community in the UK acting in concert with the wider Sikh diaspora in other
Western countries, including the US and Canada, is a good example.
Sikh communities abroad contributed significantly to the violence in the Punjab, which targeted Indian security
forces and members of the Hindu community. Their major contribution was through the collection and illegal
transfer of funds to the Punjab for those carrying out the secessionist violence in India. They also created
serious problems for the Indian government by campaigning and publicizing the demand for secession and
independence abroad as well as highlighting cases of human rights abuse carried out by the Indian security
forces.

The Indian government tried to put pressure on Britain by questioning the UK government on its provision of
asylum and benefits to some Sikh refugees, and by trying to get the UK to restrict the activities of the Khalistan
Council and agree to an extradition treaty with India. the activities of the Sikhs in the UK had the effect of
damaging the long-standing and generally amicable and close relationship between Britain and India. The more
open the system and the more susceptible to lobbying it is, the more likely it is that minority communities will
succeed in getting their concerns on the agenda. Host governments too will try to use their ethnic minority
communities to achieve their own goals, particularly those in relation to events in the country of origin of that
community, with Mafia leaders, for example, assisting the Allied invasion of Sicily during the Second World War.

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Admitting migrants has long-lasting social effects on receiving countries. It can turn homogeneous societies into
multicultural ones by the introduction of ethnically different people. Migrants raise social concerns because
they potentially threaten to undermine the popularity and strength of the nation state. As citizens of one state,
moving to live and work in another, migrants clearly challenge traditional notions about membership of a state.
The perceptions of migrants as welfare-dependent, or so numerous and needy as to stretch local resources in
housing, education, health care and transportation, can cause resentment and hostility. These issues are
evident in Australian attitudes to asylum seekers, with media and government alike frequently representing
asylum seekers as economic migrants looking to exploit the goodwill of Australia and Australians. Migrants are
also sometimes perceived to be criminals and carriers of infectious diseases.

European Union states have tried to harmonize their refugee and immigration policies. The 1990 Dublin
Convention (which came into effect in 1997) pro - vided that an asylum seeker who has had his/her application
rejected in one European country cannot seek asylum elsewhere in the European Union. Thus rejection by one
member state is a rejection by all EU members. Most Western European states (with the exception of Ireland
and the UK) have further collaborated on developing a common visa and immigration policy, the Schengen
Agreement, which harmonizes rules for visa requirements, travel within their borders and removes intra-EU
travel barriers. Most of the world’s refugees originate from and remain in the developing world, and here large
refugee inflows can be an immense burden in economic terms.

Migrants are received with hostility if they are perceived as a threat to the culture and way of life of the people
in the receiving country. This tends to happen when large numbers arrive in a short period of time or when
migrants are seen as holding themselves apart and being reluctant to make any efforts to integrate into the host
country’s way of life. Large long-term refugee populations can bring about significant changes in the social
cohesion and stability of the host country.

Large numbers of refugees can also be a driving force for change within the receiving country, particularly if
they are ethnically like their hosts, or speak a common language. The gradual ‘Talibanization’ of parts of
Pakistan, and the growing support attracted by the Islamic political parties.

Further, migration can affect political and social conditions, and even, in rare instances, fundamentally alter the
nature of society in receiving countries, many years after the actual movement of people has ceased.

2-EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
What Is Cybersecurity?
“The defence of computers and servers, mobile devices, electronic systems, networks and data from
malicious attacks.” (Kaspersky Labs 2016)

What Is CyberPower?

“The ability to obtain preffered outcomes through use of the electronically interconnected
information resources of the cyber domain” (Nye 2011).

What Are The Types?

1-Computer Network Attack: the use of deliberate actions and operations to alter distrupt, degrade,
destory adversary comp. Systemsof network sor information.

2-Computer Network Exploitation: Non-destructive operation whose objective is to obtain

information that would otherwise be kept confidential (Lin 2010)

Actors And Objectives

1-Nation States and their security and intelligence services.

2-Non-State Actors (terrorist groups, organized crime and hacktivists)

OBJECTIVES:

Strategic Advantage

Profit

Advance or Publicize a political agenda

Attribution And Responses

Attribution: the ability to hold a cyber actor responsible for a specific cyber operation and action.
Cyber and Non-Cyber responses

Cross Domain Detterence: Cross-domain deterrence is threat of taking action in one domain to deter
an adversary from taking action in another domain. Cross-domain deterrence (CDD) is the use of
capabilities of one type to counter threats or combinations of threats of another type in order to
prevent unacceptable attacks. Examples might include using air power to retaliate for terrorism or
cyber disruption of military command and control.

HOW IS CYBER POWER DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR POWER?

The cyber club is much broader than the nuclear club, including non-state actors.
Private entities are on the frontlines defending against cyber intrusions (ihlal).

Cyber Weapons and capabilities are much more available than nuclear weapons and capabilities.

DO THE CONCEPTS OF JUS AD BELLUM AND JUS IN BELLO APPLY TO THE CYBER DOMAIN?

JUS AD BELLUM: having right to go war

JUS IN BELLO: how to conduct / act justly in war

Jus ad Bellum:

Just cause / Rignt Intention (self defence – UNSC resolution)

Proper authority

Reasonable chance to success

Proportionality

Last Resort (after diplomacy, mediation etc.)

Jus In Bello:

Proportionality

Distinction

Military Necessity

What Are Drones?

“A power driven aircraft other than a model aircraft that designed to fly without human operatör on
board”

Recoverable, segregated / detachable munitions, requires forward operating bases because of range
and speed.

Cruise missiles has adjustable trojectory.

Balistic Missiles has fixed tojectory.

UAV: unmanned aerial vehicle olan, insansız hava aracı kısaltması.

Categories Of Drones: Attitude / Endurance / Mini / Tactical / Strategic / Range

Functions: Combat / Reconnaissance / Surveillance

Advantages

Sustained presence
Near-instantaneous responsiveness

Minimize Risks and Casualties

Disadvantages

Moral Hazad

Use outside combat zones (Jus ad Bellum)

Lack of distinction between civilians and combatants (Jus in Bello)

Q: ARE DRONES ETHICAL?

OUTER SPACE TREATY

Bans any state from appropriating outer space bodies

Prohibits the weaponization of Outerspace

Allows only peaceful uses of outerspace fort he benefit and in the interest of all countries.

WHY COLONIZATION CONSIDERED?

1-Resouce Extraction

2-Threats to the possibility of continued life on earth

3-Social Engineering

WHY SPACE WEAPONIZING CONSIDERED?

1-Protecting Satellites

2-Controlling Space

3-Projecting Force

EFFECTIVENESS

Insufficient situational awarness

Not good at protecting satellites

Not necessary for force projection

Ineffective against ICBM (An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a missile with a minimum
range of 5,000 kilometres)

SPACE+SECURITY

Threats related to conflict between states

Threats physical security

Threats to stability of international system

INTRODUCTION

Once the primary domain of military and intelligence activities, cybersecurity has become a key issue in global
security. Cyber-attacks and intrusions have had a broad impact, from the attacks against Georgia and Estonia to
Stuxnet (see Box 37.1) to the disruption against Sony Pictures Entertainment and, most recently, the alleged
interference in the US presidential election. Now widely utilized by non-state actors.

Kaspersky Labs, a leading cybersecurity firm, defines cybersecurity as the defense of ‘computers and servers,
mobile devices, electronic systems, networks, and data from malicious attacks’

Cyberspace is not a physical place and has been defined in numerous ways, but for purposes of this chapter we
will adopt the National Academy of Sciences’ definition in its landmark study on cybersecurity: ‘Cyberspace
consists of artifacts based on or dependent on computing and communications technology; the information
that these artifacts use, store, handle, or process; and the interconnections among these various elements’

Defined behaviorally, cyber power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through use of the electronically
interconnected information resources of the cyber domain. (NYE)

First, there is the occasionally difficult classification of cyber activity itself, generally labelled as ‘computer
network operations’ (CNO) or cyber operations. The three primary activities are divided into three categories,
computer network attack (CNA), computer network defense (CND) and computer network exploitation (CNE).

CNA: the use of deliberate actions and operations – perhaps over an extended period of time – to alter, disrupt,
deceive, degrade or destroy adversary computer systems of networks or the information and (or) programs
resident in or transiting these systems or networks.

CYBER THREAT ACTORS

Nation states and their security and intelligence services were the primary if not the exclusive actors in
cyberspace. However, significant technological advances made computer network resources more widely
available. Thus, non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, organized crime and ‘hacktivists’, are now taking full
advantage of cyber capabilities.

State actors generally seek intelligence to give their governments a strategic advantage via CNE; however, states
can also disrupt or damage other networks. On the other hand, organized crime groups are pursuing quick
profit, so they seek to steal information or deploy ‘ransomware’, essentially taking computer networks hostage
until a ransom is paid.

Hacktivists will use defacement or denial of service attacks to advance or publicize their political agenda.

THE ATTRIBUTION CONUNDRUM

Attribution is the ability to hold a cyber actor responsible for a specific cyber operation or action.

The more complicated reality is that the attribution of cyber intrusions or attacks can be exceptionally difficult
because hackers (both the state and non-state varieties) have tools at their disposal to disguise their
involvement, essentially to engage in denial and deception.

EXAMPLE: North Korean attack against Sony in 2014. More recently, the issue of attribution also became critical
in the hacks against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016, which had a disruptive impact on the
US presidential election and has been linked to Russia.

DETERRENCE: IS THE NUCLEAR ANALOGY REALLY APPLICABLE?

Since cyber operations can be difficult to attribute and stop, there is considerable discussion about deterrence
to ensure security of networks and data. They equate nuclear weapons with cyber particularly because of their
advanced technological nature.

STUXNET WORM: Stuxnet is generally considered to be the first ‘weaponized’ cyber malware. It was allegedly
built and deployed by the US and Israel, although neither government has con - firmed its involvement. Stuxnet
was designed to gradually attack and sabotage components of Iran’s nuclear programme and is believed to have
been deployed in 15 Iranian nuclear facilities.

In essence, deterrence theory holds that maintaining a credible retaliatory capacity can prevent opponents
from attacking, since they know that if they attack, they will be destroyed (see Chapter 13, this volume).
However, there are a number of significant differences between nuclear and cyber power. For example, the
cyber ‘club’ is much broader than the nuclear club, including non-state actors. Additionally, private entities such
as business enterprises are often on the frontlines defending against cyber intrusions and attacks from a host of
state and non-state actors.

‘90% of cyberspace actually resides in the private sector’ (Reveron 2016). Derek Reveron (2016) notes that
email servers and operating systems are controlled by the private sector (Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and that
the government has not necessarily played a role in these systems.

The report noted the key issues and actors, including z Major powers, such as Russia and China, have strong and
growing cyber capabilities that could pose significant risk to critical infrastructure and defend against any
military response. Regional powers, such as Iran and North Korea, are increasing their ability with home-grown
or purchased cyber tools to conduct catastrophic attacks on critical infrastructure. non-state actors, while more
limited in potential cyber impact, could still cause cumulative damage to adversaries and critical infrastructure
(Defense Science Board 2017).

THE SEARCH FOR INTERNATIONAL NORMS: BUDAPEST AND TALLINN

Tallinn Manual (versions 1.0 and 2.0) is an exhaustive and extremely valuable effort by a group of legal experts
to apply international law in the development of general cyber norms and more specific black letter rules of
law. Budapest Convention (2001) is ‘the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and
other computer networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child
pornography and violations of network security’.

The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (2013), on the other hand, is
aspirational; it provides an extremely detailed and thoughtful compilation of expert opinion on the application
of international law and norms to the Cyber domain.

CYBER ATTACKS, DIVERSE SECURITY CONSEQUENCES: TWO CASE STUDIES

The North Korean attack on Sony in 2014 and the cyber disruptions of Estonia in 2007 demonstrated the impact
of weaponized cyber technology on transnational security in the public and private sectors. Further, both cases
give us an opportunity to understand the application of international law, deterrence and the unique aspects of
the cyber domain.

The cyber campaign targeted the websites of Estonia’s president, parliament, government ministries and
political parties, as well as two of the country’s largest banks and three of Estonia’s major media organizations.

A group named ‘Guardians of the Peace’ claimed credit for the attack, citing their objection to an upcoming
Sony movie comedy about North Korea entitled The Interview.

DRONE PROLIFERATION

One of the most significant, if contentious, developments on the twenty-first century battlefield has been the
use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, to carry out counter-terrorism strikes.
They were first used for strike missions in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. The United States has used drones to
target suspected terrorists and insurgents around the globe, beginning with a strike in Yemen in 2002 against
the suspected perpetrator of the USS Cole bombing in 2000. Between then and 2015, the United States carried
out more than 500 counter-terrorism strikes in countries ranging from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia. The use of
drones on the battlefield long precedes highly publicized uses by the United States since the September 11,
2001, attacks.

These counter-terrorism strikes have drawn criticism. By eliminating the risk of death to soldiers on the
attacking side, some critics worry drones may create a moral hazard that makes states more reckless with
drones than they would be if their soldiers faced the risk of death. Along similar lines, the use of drones for
counterterrorism also raises legal criticisms, including compatibility with jus ad bellum (the recourse to force),
particularly for uses outside active combat zones.

Many thought that the United States had a virtual monopoly on the use of armed drones. However, other
countries are catching up. Israel has been one of the leading producers and exporters of UAVs for decades.
China has also emerged as a leader in the development of drone technology. Moreover, states such as Iraq,
Nigeria, and Pakistan, have now used armed drones in combat.

Some states have much more to gain than others by augmenting their loitering capacity. For countries that face
terrorist threats drones provide a potentially useful tool, as the US use of drones in counter-terrorism
operations since 9/11 underscores.

For shorter-range systems, that cannot operate beyond the line of sight, systems are widely available on the
commercial market. Even for slightly more advanced systems, there are willing exporters such as Israel willing to
supply unarmed systems, and China has become increasingly willing to export armed drones such as the CH-3
or CH-4 for unarmed systems. This makes the technology-push factors driving current-generation drone
proliferation strong, as most theories of proliferation predict.

The fact that drones reduce the risk of casualties makes them potentially attractive for leaders in democracies
who fear the public opinion consequences of wartime casualties. At the same time, drones allow countries to
maintain more centralized control over the use of force.

One view suggests that drone proliferation will generate challenges for international stability. This argument
hinges on the notion that drones, by eliminating risk, create a moral hazard and lead to more frequent and
questionably legal uses of force than would otherwise occur.

Those who are pessimistic about the prospects of proliferation advance several potential contexts in which the
introduction of current-generation drones could be destabilizing. Perhaps most salient are cross-border
scenarios in regions that are already quite tense such as the Middle East and East Asia. The proliferation of
drones could also make the domestic use of force, for the purposes of repression, more likely. Several states
appear to face domestic-based opposition groups that they believe threaten their rule. In some of these cases,
from Russia with the Chechens to Pakistan with the Taliban, the government has designated these groups
terrorists, giving them license to attack. Drones could present leaders with an alternative that might seem
easier to use and at lower cost.

The proliferation of drones could also make the domestic use of force, for the purposes of repression, more
likely. A number of states appear to face domestic-based opposition groups that they believe threaten their
rule. In some of these cases, from Russia with the Chechens to Pakistan with the Taliban, the government has
designated these groups terrorists, giving them license to attack. Drones could present leaders with an
alternative that might seem easier to use and at lower cost.

Stealth drone / Dirty Drone / Advancements in speed of drones

OUTERSPACE
UN’s Outer Space Treaty clearly defines outer space as a res communis: a global common owned by ‘humanity’.
These narratives suggest the emergence of a new form of insecurity, that is, a threat to the possibility of
continued life on Earth. Concern that the Earth will run out of the resources required to sustain its growing
human population. In this context, some voices argue that it is necessary to begin thinking and planning for a
move to other planets. Many frames space colonization as a private–public partner - ship in which ‘the role of
government is to provide the infrastructure and investment to establish a viable industry’.

TRADITIONAL SECURITY RISKS

One of the biggest problems presented by space mining and colonization projects is the challenge they pose to
the concept of sovereignty, which is designed to apply to planet Earth. In the absence of an authoritative body
that can effectively govern outer space, it is unclear how questions of off-Earth territorial claims or jurisdiction
could be settled.

As a result, the Outer Space Treaty does not explicitly prevent individuals or private companies from pursuing a
policy of ‘first grab’, that is, laying claim to resources or outer space bodies as the ‘first’ people to arrive there.

This gap in regulation, along with significant advances in space technology, has spurred some states to pass
legislation intended to maximize their ability to benefit economically from activity in outer space.

For these reasons, it is important to pay attention to the political status, rights, and vulnerabilities of potential
outer space dwellers. Security scholars concerned about human security in outer space should draw on critical
studies of migration on Earth to analyses the conditions that might motivate migration into space, the power
structures and dynamics that determine mobility, the health and well-being of migrants during their journeys
and once they arrive, and the socioeconomic structures in which they will live.

On the contrary, the potential colonization and exploitation of outer space has significant implications for the
cultural security of Indigenous peoples. On Earth, the development of space technologies, including launch
sites, has displaced Indigenous communities in Euro-American colonial territories such as central Australia, the
Maghreb (Gorman 2005), French Guiana (Redfield 2000) and, most recently, the development of observatories
on the sacred mountain of Mauna Kea in Hawai’i. Meanwhile, proposed NewSpace projects threaten the
traditional territory, ancestors, and kin of many Indigenous peoples in outer space.

Roles for space weapons in addition to missile defense—for protecting satellites, controlling space,
and projecting force—in terms of capabilities and cost.

3-ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SECURITY

ANTHROPOCENE: Antroposen, insanoğlunun Dünya'ya olan etkisinin en üst düzeylere çıktığı Sanayi
Devrimi’nden bugüne olan süreç ve devam edecek bu duruma İnsan Çağı da denen döneme verilen isim. Çünkü
Dünya artık geri döndürülmesi çok zor bir sürece girmiştir.

INTRODUCTION

The term Anthropocene was beginning to be used in 2011 as a new word in Earth system science to emphasize
the dramatic scale of transformations that mostly the rich and powerful parts of humanity have unleashed. The
term Anthropocene suggests that humanity has become a force shaping the planetary system quite profoundly,
on a scale that requires Earth system scientists to consider the present as a new geological period in the
planet’s history.

Powering this transformation is the combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that are literally turning
rocks into air. This is changing the composition of the atmosphere in several ways that is causing more heat
from the sun to be trapped and as a result accelerating climate change. The Anthropocene suggests that the
rich and powerful decision makers in the global economy are increasingly shaping the future of the planet’s
essential biological systems, and hence humanity’s future in a rapidly changing biosphere. Whether climate
change will cause armed conflict is one of the new questions on the agenda for security studies; fears of climate
migrants have long fueled xenophobic nationalism.

This might be secured by an international agreement to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels, an arrangement
that, despite the tentative steps forward in the Paris Agreement of December 2015, has yet to emerge as a
comprehensive programmed to tackle climate change.

Human security is also very much about how we will feed ourselves and supply water and breathable air to
coming generations and more immediately about how people dispossessed by the rapid extension of the global
economy will find their means of livelihood.

EARTH SYSTEM BOUNDARIES/SAFE OPERATING SPACE

Humanity lived then in small mostly nomadic groups despite having basic technology and the ability to use fire
for cooking and heating. But, once the glaciers retreated at the beginning of the Holocene and humanity spread
rapidly, larger agglomerations and population growth became possible. These stable conditions that facilitated
the flourishing of humanity are now coming to an end; this is what the Anthropocene means in practice.

Glaciers and polar icecaps are receding very quickly, and weather is becoming increasingly extreme and less
predictable.

One influential attempt to summarize these many changes is the ‘Earth system boundaries framework’.
Humanity is pushing several crucial ecological systems beyond what seem to be safe boundaries; straining the
systems in ways that may lead to dangerous disruptions to how the system has operated through most of the
Holocene. This framework posits nine key ecological boundaries to the ‘safe operating space’ of the Earth
system (see Figure 35.1). Climate change is the first and probably the most important com - ponent. Second is
the rapid decline in biospheric integrity due to the extermination of many species and the related destruction of
many biodiverse systems and loss of genetic material. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is the third system
boundary, one that humanity inadvertently endangered with the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons but
which has been partly solved by international agreements to ban the production of these and related
chemicals.

Oceans are crucial to life on Earth and the fourth system boundary concerns the acidification of ocean water.
Oceans are also vulnerable to the fifth boundary, the rapid increase in the flows of nitrogen, phosphorus and
other minerals from agriculture and urban activities into the waters of the planet. This pollution is related to the
sixth boundary, the rapid change in land use as urbanization and agriculture expand their reach.
 This expansion of human reach on land leads to the seventh Earth system boundary that relates to the use of
fresh water, and the wholesale damming and appropriation of river waters for human use with all the
consequences for ‘natural’ ecosystems.

This eighth system boundary is of particular concern in Asia both because of the direct health con sequences for
people and animals living there but also because of fears that this pollution might also disrupt the monsoon
rains and result in further agricultural problems where so much of humanity is dependent on rice cultivation.
Finally, the ninth boundary of concern is the matter of the introduction of numerous ‘novel’ entities into the
Earth system, new chemical substances, micro- and macro-plastics, with potential but mostly unknown hazards
to living things and the Earth system generally. The Earth system boundary formulation suggests that if
humanity is to flourish in the future it’s a reasonable assumption that the planet must be maintained within the
parameters that shaped the remarkably stable period of the Holocene. Hence the Holocene provides the
conditions for a ‘safe operating space’ of the Earth for the future of humanity.

Proponents of technological innovation suggest that we will invent our way out of difficulties and produce new
ways of life and technologies to solve problems as they arise, but only if industrialists and financiers focus on
making sustainable economies and soon.

CLIMATE SECURITY AND MILITARIZATION

Since the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, increasingly alarming statements have been
issued by military agencies, in the US, but else - where too, about the potential security dangers that climate
change presents to many societies, and to the national security of metropolitan states in particular.

Given that military institutions often have the heavy equipment, ships, communications gear, helicopters, and
all-terrain vehicles that are useful in responding to emergencies, they are often the ‘first responders’ in disaster
situations. Some of these formulations included the idea of climate change as a ‘threat multi - plier’, a
phenomenon that would in future crises make violence more likely. Hence the US military needed to be
prepared for more violent conflicts made more likely as environmental change accelerated.

FORMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY THINKING:

Cooperative security: focuses attention on how states, militaries and other institutions can work together for
common benefit, on such things as shared rivers or waterways, but also on how such efforts and the habits of
working together can prevent conflict occurring in crisis situations.

Ecological security: is concerned with maintaining the integrity of natural systems on which humanity is
dependent, an especially complicated and difficult matter now that humanity is effectively changing the
planet’s ecology in the Anthropocene.

Climate security: in so far as it aims to keep the planet’s temperature close to what civilization has so far
known, is now obviously a key to ecological security.

Environmental security: frequently refers to discussions about the risks of environ - mental change causing
armed conflict, but also refers to assumptions that resource management strategies, conservation techniques
and pollution prevention can maintain the parts of the natural world that humanity uses in conditions that
allow for the continued use by the economy.

Human security: focuses on vulnerable people and the provision of the essential needs for people to thrive in
their places. As humanity increasingly lives in cities and requires commodities from all over the planet to supply
the global economy that keeps us alive, infrastructure and trade become more important in providing this form
of security.
Global security: has traditionally focused on avoiding major international and particularly nuclear wars, which
given their immense destructive consequences would render people and states everywhere insecure

National security: focuses on the state, sovereignty, and the military control of national territory, in many cases
not the appropriate scale for thinking about climate changes that have global effects.

Subsequently the ‘threat multiplier’ formulation, one that had initially been under - stood as a potential future
problem, became rephrased by the CNA Corporation (2014) in terms of a present danger and a matter
specifically of climate change as a ‘conflict catalyst’.

Some analysts argue that rising temperatures cause conflict even if the precise mechanisms that link extreme
weather to social upheaval aren’t clear. If there are clear relationships, they don’t obviously lead to warfare
even if they may aggravate small-scale social conflict.

Insofar as climate is thus considered a matter of sustain - able development it’s not clear what role military
agencies might play in dealing with it.

Indeed, given the destruction wrought by military actions, and the fuel used in military operations, it is easy to
see the military as part of the problem of environmental change rather than part of any solution.

During the Obama administrations in the US these warnings were taken seriously, and climate security was
integrated into national security strategy documents and into military planning.

Critics have been quick to challenge claims that the military is environment - ally friendly or, despite the
increasing use of solar power for military facilities and operations, a genuinely ‘green’ institution. Just as
corporations are increasingly finding ways to ‘financialize’ climate risks, diversifying supply chains, looking for
ways to reduce their exposure to environmental disruptions by outsourcing potentially dangerous parts of their
operations, shifting production and buying carbon offset credits in the growing carbon markets, so the critics
argue, climate is becoming militarized and military organizations are intervening to ensure the supply of
resources to metropoles even if it involves the violent dispossession of traditional peoples from their lands to
supply resources to international markets.

While traditionally the US military was closely aligned with the Republican Party in American politics, on the
issue of climate change many Republican politicians, influenced by the campaigns to deny the significance of
climate change (Oreskes and Conway 2010), and partly funded by fossil fuel company-derived electoral
campaign contributions, have actively tried to defund Pentagon initiatives related to climate change.

A CLIMATE FOR PEACE?

The Anthropocene discussion suggests that humanity is fundamentally reshaping many key aspects of the Earth
system.

So far, climate change and environmental matters are not the priority; old-fashioned rivalries between states
continue to be the ‘macro-securitization’ that drives much international policymaking. ‘Brexit’ referendum and
the Trump presidential campaign in the United States, revived fears regarding international cooperation on
many issues, and not just the highlighted themes of trade and migration.

It is about ecological agriculture and landscapes that can both buffer the extremes of climate while providing
food and livelihoods to their inhabitants. It’s about making cities that are livable but powered by solar or wind
energy rather than burning fossil fuels.
THE PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

In December 2015 under the auspices of the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change country
representatives in Paris reached an agreement to deal to try to limit climate change. The Paris Agreement
entered into force in November 2016, when the requisite number of national signatures was reached.

It also aims to increase the ability of societies to adapt to climate changes and develop economies that use low
fossil fuel energy systems while also providing international financial mechanisms to facilitate climate resilient
development.

A global ‘stocktaking’ is planned for 2023 where each states’ commitment plans will be evaluated, and further
plans made to ‘ratchet up’ ambitions for subsequent years.

Nonetheless, clearly the Paris process has been important in making policymakers think much more seriously
about the long-term consequences of their actions. Climate change has also been integrated into the
discussions of the Sustainable Development Goals, the overarching policy framework for development over the
period from 2015 through to 2030. Sustainable development has long been considered part of what is needed
to reduce conflict and ensure peace into the future.

GLOBAL RESILIENCE

While the authors of this paper reiterate the earlier findings of the ‘New Climate for Peace’ agenda, they
emphasize that environmental sustainability is now a geo - political interest for the states involved in various
rivalries. But more careful thought about the significance of the Anthropocene suggests that more than
resilience thinking will be needed, perhaps much more. Resilience is frequently understood in terms of the
ability of ‘bounce back’ after a shock to a system. In terms of environmental security, it is about the ability of a
forest to regrow after a fire, an ecosystem to re-establish itself after a flood, and in human terms an ability to
avoid serious harm when natural hazards occur or to recover and rebuild after a storm.

Environmental management systems that presuppose that ecosystem are geo - graphically fixed and need to be
preserved in perpetuity are no longer the appropriate context for maintaining species diversity. Adaptation
planning is in its infancy and the recognition that thinking ahead for how to cope in different circumstances is
now key has been slow to spread. Counterinsurgency strategies may only make things worse for dispossessed
peoples if they don’t take the practicalities of rural political economy seriously.

CLIMATE GEOPOLITICS

Many innovations are coming from cities and corporations rather than governments, not least because they
may be more flexible and able to adapt and experiment than states are. If security is understood as protecting
existing arrangements from threatening changes, then it may slow or obstruct new modes of doing things
rather than act to facilitate the ecologically inspired innovations that the Anthropocene analysis shows are
crucially necessary if societies are to flourish in the new rapidly changing circumstances now facing humanity.

The rise of solar- and wind-generated electricity and the dramatic reduction in the price of energy they produce
has partly undercut the power of the fossil fuel sectors in the US, but much further electrification of industrial
and transportation sectors of the economy are needed if climate security is to become the primary policy
concern. These policy dilemmas are even more difficult for states that rely heavily on oil revenues for their
national budgets. Saudi Arabia is only the most obvious case.

For states without such strategies, it is easy to portray international climate negotiations as a security threat
insofar as such measures will undermine the economic activities of the state. difficulties facing Venezuela after
the collapse of oil prices in 2014 is an object lesson in why planning for a post-petroleum world a necessity.
ANTHROPOCENE SECURITY

Once the Anthropocene insights are considered novel notions of security are needed if humanity is to thrive in
the long run and individual states are going to adjust to rapidly changing circumstances. Considering the Paris
Agreement, this all means that security must now be under - stood both as a matter of maintaining states as
reasonably functional entities and simultaneously as agents of change in terms of building adaptable economies
that don’t burn fossil fuels or destroy other ecological things that will be needed by future generations. More
than this, the Anthropocene makes it clear that humans are much more interconnected both with each other
and with the natural world than conventional notions of separate sovereign states usually suggest.

However much nationalist politicians might like to pretend that we live in relatively sealed boxes where borders
can prevent threats from abroad threatening us, the Anthropocene makes it clear that, as with globalization and
economics, the natural world impinges on us, and us on it, much more profoundly than these simple
cartographies of separation suggest.

For any environmental threat to be a security threat, there must be some demonstrable connection to some
vital national interest.

A more basic criticism is that the existential view of environment as a security issue is far too blunt an
instrument to generate appropriate policy responses. Because it seeks to obscure precise calculation of
environmental threats and costliness of response strategies (to promote double counting), it discourages critical
thinking about which environmental problems are serious and which are trivial.

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study in 1987 found little correlation between public perception of
the seriousness of environmental risks and the actual seriousness of those risks.

Environmental degradation constitutes a direct physical threat to U.S. security interests when environmental
damage results directly in the significant loss of life or welfare of U.S. citizens, or otherwise impairs our most
important national values. A thinning of the ozone layer that threatens to kill and blind hundreds of thousands
of Americans is easy to identify as a security risk.

OZONE DEPLETION: A review of the ozone depletion problem shows that while it clearly constitutes a security
risk, and that efforts to cope with the problem have similarities with efforts to cope with important military
threats, there is no evidence that labeling the problem as a security threat adds any value to our ability as a
society to respond effectively. In fact, one reason political responses to the ozone depletion problem have been
so effective may be that the problem was by and large not framed as a security problem, but rather as a more
mundane public health and chemical hazard problem.

supersonic transport plane (SST)

The consequences of such a temperature rise have been estimated for freshwater resources, sea level rise,
erosion, wetlands loss, agricultural productivity, biodiversity, air quality, human health, and urban
infrastructure. Taken all together, these effects would constitute a security risk if they threatened such a severe
upheaval to the domestic economy that Americans would suffer greater hardship than we consider tolerable.

Within the next fifty years, the planet's human population will probably pass nine billion, and global economic
output may quintuple. Largely as a result, scarcities of renewable resources will increase sharply. The total area
of high-quality agricultural land will drop, as will the extent of forests and the number of species they sustain.
Coming generations will also see the widespread depletion and degradation of aquifers, rivers, and other water
resource.
Six types of environmental change were identified as plausible causes of violent inter- group conflict: *
greenhouse-induced climate change.

* Stratospheric ozone depletion.

* Degradation and loss of good agricultural land.

* Degradation and removal of forests.

* Depletion and pollution of fresh water supplies; and

* Depletion of fisheries.

Of the major environmental changes facing humankind, degradation and depletion of agricultural land, forests,
water, and fish will contribute more to social turmoil in coming decades than will climate change or ozone
depletion. Mexico, for example, is vulnerable to such interactions. People are already leaving the state of
Oaxaca because of drought and soil erosion.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCARCITY: Environmental scarcity refers to the declining availability of renewable natural
resources such as freshwater or soil.

Environmental change is only one of three main sources of renewable-resource scarcity. The second, population
growth, reduces a resource's per-capita availability by dividing it among more and more people. The third,
unequal resource distribution, concentrates resource in the hands of a few people and subjects the rest to
greater scarcity.7 The property rights that govern resource distribution often change as a result of large-scale
development projects or new technologies that alter the relative values of resources.

In other words, reduction in the quantity or quality of a resource shrinks the resource pie, while population
growth divides the pie into smaller slices for each individual, and unequal resource distribution means that
some groups get disproportionately large slices.

POPULATION MOVEMENT AND GROUP-IDENTITY CONFLICTS: There is substantial evidence to support the
hypothesis that environmental scarcity causes large population movement, which in turn causes group- identity
conflicts. But we must be sensitive to contextual factors unique to each socio-ecological system. Environmental
scar- city is more likely to produce migrants than refugees because it usually develops gradually, which means
that the push effect is not sharp and sudden and that pull factors can therefore clearly enter into potential mi-
grants' calculations. Even accounting for such contextual factors, events in Bangladesh and Northeast India
provide strong evidence in support of the second hypothesis. In recent decades, huge numbers of people have
moved from Bangladesh to India, producing group-identity conflicts in the adjacent Indian states.

There is little empirical support for the first hypothesis that environmental scarcity causes simple-scarcity
conflicts between states. Scarcities of renew- able resources such as forests and croplands do not often cause
resource wars between states. This finding is intriguing because resource wars have been common since the
beginning of the state system. For instance, during World War II, Japan sought to secure oil, minerals, and other
resources in China and Southeast Asia, and the 1991 Gulf War was at least partly motivated by the desire for oil.
ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION: Empirical evidence partially supports the third hypothesis that environmental
scarcity simultaneously increases economic deprivation and disrupts key social institutions, which in turn causes
"deprivation" conflicts such as civil strife and insurgency. Environmental scarcity does produce economic
deprivation, and this deprivation does cause civil strife. Resource degradation and depletion often affect
economic productivity in poor countries and thereby contribute to deprivation. For example, erosion in upland
Indonesia annually costs the country's agricultural economy nearly half a billion dollars in discounted future
income.

A COMBINED MODEL:

Environmental scarcity has insidious and cumulative social impacts, such as population movement, economic
decline, and the weakening of states. These can contribute to diffuse and persistent sub-national violence. The
rate and extent of such conflicts will increase as scarcities worsen. This sub-national violence will not be as
conspicuous or dramatic as inter- state resource wars, but it will have serious repercussions for the security
interests of both the developed and the developing worlds.

Our research suggests that environmental pressures in China may cause the country's fragmentation.80 This is
not the received wisdom: most experts have been distracted by the phenomenal economic expansion in China's
coastal areas; they have tended to project these trends onto the rest of the country and to neglect the dangers
posed by resource scarcities.

Countries experiencing chronic internal conflict because of environmental stress will probably either fragment
or become more authoritarian. Fragmenting countries will be the source of large out-migrations, and they will
be unable to effectively negotiate or implement international agreements on security, trade and environmental
protection. Authoritarian regimes may be inclined to launch attacks against other countries to divert popular
attention from internal stresses. Any of these outcomes could seriously disrupt inter- national security. The
social impacts of environmental scarcity therefore de- serve concerted attention from security scholars.
4-RACE AND RACIALIZATION
RACE: Hierarchical adjudication of human competencies through the categorizing of group attributes,
where in groups are delineated by some kind of shared heritage that is deemed visually identifiable
through visual or other senate cues.

KEY EVENTS:

1-The maximizing of Atlantic World

2-Mandate system under League of Nations

3-Holocaust

4-South African Apartheid

5-Bandung Conference

6-Black Power Movement

7-Post 9/11

QUESTION: IS MULTICULTURALISM FAILED?

WHAT IS POST COLONIALISM?

Theoretical approach concerned with the enduring legacy of colonization across the globe.

KEY THINKERS AND CONCEPTS

Frantz Fenon: “white mask” colonial condition, absolute revolution

Edward Said: Orientalism

Gayatri Spivak: Subalternity

Muhammed Ayoob: Subaltern Realism

QUESTIONS: IS THERE A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS?

IS HUMANITARIANISM A RACIST PURSUIT?

NIMBY: NIMBY, an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard" or Nimby, is a characterization of
opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, as well as support for strict
land use regulations. It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the
development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built
farther away.

EXAM Q: IR-RACISM? (Cosmetic International History // Colonist view on race)

WHAT IS POSTCOLONIALISM?

Postcolonialism is a theoretical approach used in various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences that is
concerned with the enduring legacy of colonization across the globe. Rather, postcolonialism seeks to analyses,
explain, and center the ways in which empire and imperialism continue to structure interactions between the
‘East’ and the ‘West’ or the Global North and Global South. Postcolonialism is best understood as a set of
perspectives, sensibilities, or orientations rather than as a single theory.
MAPPING POSTCOLONIALITY

Because there is no singular postcolonial theory, there is no founder responsible for its birth and no single point
of origin. A different genealogy of postcolonialism can be traced, through moments and key thinkers.

MOMENT A: BANDUNG

This decolonial moment was felt most acutely in 1955, when representatives from 29 states across Asia and
Africa convened the first Third World conference in Bandung, Indonesia. Bandung provided the first cohesive
platform for Asian and African peoples – most of whom were newly independent citizens – to articulate and
chart a different, anti-colonial and anti-racist future for themselves and to promote Afro-Asian economic and
cultural cooperation.

The symbolism of this first summit was emotive and powerful – it was an assertion of sovereignty and augured
a new direction for formerly colonized nations towards justice and peace, on their own terms without Western
influence.

MOMENT B: 9/11

A similar anti-imperial awakening occurred in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, especially
following the US-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in
New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC perpetrated by a group of men mainly from Saudi Arabia
unleashed the so-called ‘global war against terrorism’.

More radical postcolonial scholars have argued that IR is also downright racist in its systematic silencing of black
theorists who were integral to its formation (Vitalis 2015) and also in its use of racist concepts and theories, not
least those of realism and liberalism (Henderson in Anievas et al. 2015)

KEY THINKERS:
FRANTZ FANON: He is unequalled as a theorist of the psychological effects of colonization and his work on
violent anti-colonial struggle is of relevance to students of international security today. Fanon’s own experience
of colonial racism in the French army (which he joined against the occupying forces of Nazi Germany) and his
observation that French women avoided contact with black soldiers at all costs (despite the soldiers’ sacrifice
for their colonial overlords) bestowed Fanon with a heightened awareness of the ingrained and insidious nature
of racism in France. Fanon was one of these and he eagerly imbibed Césaire’s philosophy of black pride, and
built upon it in his book Black Skin, White Masks (1952) to explore the multifarious obstacles faced by black
people in a world that is predominantly run by and for white people. The leitmotif of the book is that people of
color must adorn ‘white masks’ to survive and, more rarely, succeed in a white world. For Fanon, ‘colonialism is
violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence’ (1968: 61). Fanon does
not endorse anticolonial violence but rather conceives of it as a necessary evil, the only choice left for those
shackled by the murderous chains of colonialism.

EDWARD W. SAID: Theorist B: Edward W. Said Edward Said extended Fanon’s insight about how colonization
codified the difference between the white and the darker races and brought it to bear on the study of the
‘Orient’ or the ‘Other’. In this imperial imaginary, stereotypes of Eastern peoples as lazy, backwards, mysterious
and irrational serve to justify violence and intervention against them. Orientalism is a pioneering work of
postcolonial analysis because it critically interrogates and sheds light on the insidious way the ‘Orient’ is
necessarily kept in a position of subordination to the ‘Occident’.
This inscription of hierarchy also feeds into a narrative where the ‘Self’ must be protected and secured against
the ‘Other’. The Orient is not merely backwards and underdeveloped, it is also mysterious, violent, chaotic, and
dangerous. This led Said to conclude that a highly racialized and unequal postcolonial world order is reproduced
through our subconscious biases and ingrained prejudices. These biases can be seen at play in US President
Trump’s foreign policies, for instance in his depiction of Mexicans and associated plan to construct a ‘wall’
between Mexico and the US, and in the travel ban on Muslims.

EXAMPLE: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MUSLIM BAN

GAYATRI SPIVAK: Spivak’s scholarship and activism are directed towards the colonizing tendencies of the West,
both intellectually and politically, to - wards the East in an era of globalization. Spivak spells out the difficulties
faced by certain marginalized and oppressed groups; normally those raced, classed, and gendered in such a way
that they fall outside the hegemonic discourse. She particularly focuses on the silencing, erasure and writing
out of these people – the poorest, most marginalized groups such as the ‘untouchables’ in India – to show how
even well-meaning critics of colonialism end up romanticizing and co-opting these ‘others’ and end up
reproducing extant hierarchies and structures of power. There are two main reasons that the subaltern cannot
be granted speech according to Spivak. First, the ‘subalterns’ hardly ever speak for themselves; they are
normally spoken for, their insights relayed and captured in words by other people that cannot do justice to their
lived experience. Second, by purporting to speak for the oppressed, we as intellectuals often homogenize and
essentialize the diverse experiences of these marginalized postcolonial peoples. Spivak not only expands our
concept of security by exhorting us to think about who the subject of security usually is; she also contributes to
our understanding of power and violence, both key concepts in the study of security. By drawing attention to
the dynamics of marginalization and dominance through which subalternity and hegemony are co-constituted,
Spivak elucidates the workings of postcolonial power relations.

SHARED ASSUMPTIONS

Most postcolonial scholars agree that conventional approaches to security studies in International Relations are
based on a problematic ontology or world view, one which privileges the West over the rest. The Eurocentric
rendering of the world and the knowledge practices that produce this world are considered inadequate and
skewed for two principal reasons. First, smaller states and countries in the Third World are neglected because
they are seen as largely irrelevant players in the international realm.

Second, the security concerns of the Third World are either completely marginalized or interpreted as
extensions of great-power concerns on a smaller scale. This was especially evident during the Cold War, when
Third World security-related issues tended to be read through the lens of superpower rivalry.

THIRD WORLD SECURITY AND SUBALTERN REALISM

This approach is often referred to as ‘Third World Nationalism’ and the scholar most associated with it is
Mohammed Ayoob. For Ayoub and those working with the ‘subaltern realist’ perspective, the ‘Third World’ –
comprised of large swathes of Africa, Asia, and Latin America – warrants far more attention than has been
hitherto paid by traditional security studies, given that most wars in the post-Cold War era have been waged in
these countries. More importantly, most of these wars have been fought within states, considerably weakening
the explanatory power of conventional IR paradigms such as realism and liberalism that focus on interstate
armed conflict in postcolonial contexts.

Ayoob contends that ‘the sense of insecurity from which these [Third World] states – and more particularly
their regimes – suffer, emanates to a substantial extent from within their boundaries rather than from outside.
This is not to argue that external threats to the state are absent but rather that they are always already tied to
internal threats to states and their regimes.
Ayoob calls his theory – which functions as an alternative to both conventional and critical schools of security –
a ‘subaltern realist’ approach to security. His notion of ‘subaltern’ should not be confused with Spivak’s,
discussed above. While the conceptions are related in that both focus on the less powerful (states and persons,
respectively) they are also different in important ways. What Ayoob means when he speaks of the subaltern is
that the place occupied by Third World states in relation to their First World counterparts is one of inferiority
and subordination, rather than Spivak’s more specific conceptualization of ‘subalternity’ as a contingent and
situational subjectivity of the oppressed in (post)colonial societies.

OTHER POSTCOLONIAL APPROACES TO SECURITY

The first criticism is that ‘subaltern realism’ is limited by its state-centric ontology, with critics
suggesting that we must move away from the notion that the state is the ‘container’ of security. The
second problem is not just with the exclusive focus on ‘Third World’ states but also their
representation – often characterized by a ‘lack’. Finally, subaltern realism does not foreground the
mutual constitution of the colonizer and the colonized.

CONCLUSION

Postcolonial approaches were first introduced into IR theory in the late 1980s but until recently have been
largely sidelined by mainstream theorists (Krishna 1993; Baylis et al. 2011). Postcolonial scholars challenge what
they believe to be the Eurocentric and racialized nature of dominant narratives in IR. Most argue that the study
and practice of security continue to privilege the Western (usually male) subject as the primary site of
experience and font of knowledge, systematically sidelining the world views, perspectives and lived realities of
those in the Global South. While their recommendations differ, they agree that the colonial experience is
fundamental to the project of modernity, not least modern security regimes. Postcolonial writing, given its
diversity of perspectives and experiential bases, considerably enriches and challenges conventional
understandings of power, violence, and security.

Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics
will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global
politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic
groups, nationalities, religious groups all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity.

Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure
by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese,
Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of
the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.

These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental
than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict,
and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations
have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts. Second, the world is becoming a smaller
place. The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions
intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities
within civilization. ack deep into history. Third, the processes of economic modernization and social change
throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities. They also weaken the nation
state as a source of identity. In much of the world religion has moved in to fill this gap, often in the form of
movements that are labeled "fundamentalist.