What are the theories of

international security
What are the theories of international
security?
This course has 3 major goals:

• (1) to understand the major theoretical perspectives or paradigms in security

studies;

• (2) to survey some of the most important substantive areas and debates in the field with an emphasis on

recent contributions;

• (3) to apply theories and arguments from the academic literature to contemporary policy problems;
The course is divided into two parts. The first half of the course focuses on the major theoretical traditions in IR and

international security:

• realism,

• liberalism,

• constructivism.
In the second part of the course, the focus shifts to important substantive questions in security
studies, such as:
• alliance formation;
• reputation
• the credibility of compellent and deterrent threats;
• military
coercion;
• military effectiveness;
• nuclear proliferation;
• and the role of leaders in international conflicts.
Realism

• In general, realist theories define “security” as the security of the

state and place particular emphasis on the preservation of the

state's territorial integrity and the physical safety of its

inhabitants. 
Realism
• A state is thought to be secure if it can defend against or deter a hostile
attack and prevent other states from compelling it to adjust its
behavior in significant ways or to sacrifice core political values.
• This conception may be contrasted with alternative definitions of
“security” that focus on either the individual or the global level and do
not privilege the state, or those that include nonviolent threats to
human life (such as disease or environmental degradation), domestic
crime, economic hardship, or threats to cultural autonomy or identity .
Realism

• Modern versions of realism proceed from a similar foundation. The

central idea common to all modern versions of realism is that “the

presence of multiple states in anarchy renders the security of each of

them problematic and encourages them to compete with each other for

power and/or security

Realism

• Even scholars who do not advertise themselves as “realists” embrace key

elements of this picture of the world. For example, the extensive literature
on power transitions implicitly assumes that states react to shifts in the
balance of power largely from security concerns, and the so-called
bargaining approach to international conflict models decisions for war as
actions undertaken by states who are free to use force to secure their aims
and are aware that their opponents are able to do the same.
Why is Security a Problem in World Politics?

•  A central theme in virtually all realist writing is the idea that the existence of

more than one state or “conflict group” in a condition of anarchy renders the

security of each problematic and encourages them to compete with each other.

Yet different realists offer different explanations for why security is scarce and

focus our attention on different underlying mechanisms and causal factors.

Why is Security a Problem in World Politics?

• As recent works on the intellectual underpinnings of realism suggest,

these different emphases reflect the historical conditions at the time

different works were composed, the intellectual backgrounds and life

experiences of particular authors, and the state of the broader

intellectual discourse that accompanied these Works.

Liberalism

• Liberalism is a tradition in political theory that takes individual

persons as its units of analysis. Liberalism has always been concerned

with security, albeit the security of the individual; institutions,

including the state, are all established and sustained by individuals and

instrumental to their desires.

Liberalism
• Liberalism is of the view that international relations

should not be guided by politics alone and economics

plays a vital role in bringing states closer to each other.

Dimensions of Liberalism

• Individualism:

Liberalism is a robust tradition in political theory that depicts

individual persons, rather than groups or institutions, as the primary

actors. 
Dimensions of Liberalism

• Liberalism can produce positivistic or causal theories of international relations, but its

motivation – what makes its positivistic analysis worthwhile to liberal scholars – is

its particular commitment to individual security. Furthermore, the liberal tradition has

insisted that progress – understood in liberal terms, as increases in individual

autonomy across societies – is possible in international life; for some liberals, indeed,

macro-progress is inevitable, if not linear.

Dimensions of Liberalism

• States:

Nor is liberalism, considered broadly, anti-statist. Indeed, liberal

theory has paid particular attention to the state as the institution

defined by its ability to make individuals secure and aid their

commodious living. 
Dimensions of Liberalism

• Social contract theory, one of the leading underpinnings of the modern

state and hence of the international system, arose from Enlightenment

liberalism. But a consistent liberalism is not concerned with “state

security” or “national security” except insofar as those are

instrumental to the security of the individuals within those states. 

Dimensions of Liberalism
• The international system:

• Sustaining this claim requires some attention to feedback effects from other states and

societies. Although liberal security literature that only examines individual states’

foreign policies may be guilty of slighting the role of international interaction, the

general liberal claim is clear: the international system, under broad conditions, permits

states choices.
Dimensions of Liberalism

• In other words, for liberalism states can choose over time to create and sustain

international conditions under which they will be more or less secure. To be

sure, there are times and places in which state choice is heavily constrained and

security is scarce, as during wartime. But liberalism maintains that such

situations are ultimately contingent upon the properties of the states themselves.
Dimensions of Liberalism

• In security affairs, liberalism is known for its stubborn discrimination among

states, especially according to domestic institutions or regime type. In general,

liberal states – usually defined according to their institutions – are more rational

than illiberal ones. Insofar as liberal states are attuned to this dynamic, they will

be on their guard against illiberal states but relatively trusting of one another.
Constructivism

• Constructivism is an important theory to analyze international

relations and Alexander Wendt is considered to be one of the most

vocal proponents of this theory. All through 80’s and 90’s,

constructivism has become a major force when it comes to analyzing

international relations.
Constructivism

• According to Alexander Wendt, international relations are determined more

by shared ideas rather than material interests. Though constructivism is a

separate theory of international relations, it does not necessarily contradict

realism and liberalism. Constructivism is more of a social theory that

explains the actions of states and actors belonging to these states.

Difference Between Liberalism and Constructivism

• Liberalism tries to explain international relations as having been

based upon as much on economics as on politics.

• Constructivism places more importance on shared ideas than on

material interests.
Substantive Questions in Security
Studies
• alliance formation;
• the credibility of compellent and deterrent threats;
• Military coercion;
• military effectiveness;
• and the role of leaders in international conflicts.
Alliance formation;

• The proposition that states will join alliances in order to avoid

domination by stronger powers lies at the heart of traditional
balance of power theory.
the credibility of compellent and deterrent
threats
• compellence, the ability of one state to coerce another state
into action, usually by threatening punishment.

• There are two basic forms of compellence: diplomacy and

demonstration. 
• Diplomatic, or immediate, compellence involves verbal threats and
promises. Shows of force also assist this kind of coercion; realist
scholars note that most diplomacy is underwritten by the unspoken
possibility of military action.
• Demonstrative compellence involves a limited use of force
coupled with the threat of escalating violence (which may also
include full-scale war) to come if demands are not met. This kind of
compellence is what Schelling referred to as the “diplomacy of
violence.” A state does not unleash its full military potential; instead,
it wages a limited campaign while instituting pauses to make the
adversary consider the consequences if it does not comply.
The credibility of compellent and deterrent
threats

• The concept of deterrence can be defined as the use of threats in

limited force by one party to convince another party to refrain from

initiating some course of action.

Military coercion
• Military coercion is an act of force to compel an adversary to
alter its behavior. 
Military effectiveness
• Military effectiveness is a way to measure the battlefield
performance of a given military force.
• Military effectiveness is the process by which armed forces convert
resources into fighting power. A fully effective military is one that
derives maximum combat power from the resources physically and
politically available. Effectiveness thus incorporates some notion of
efficiency. Combat power is the ability to inflict damage upon the
enemy while limiting the damage that he can inflict in return.
Military effectiveness
The scholarship on leadership and strategy suggests the following
causal mechanisms linking strategic leadership to military effectiveness:
• a good military strategy generates combat power by creating an
advantage through the discovery of new sources of relative strength
• successfully inculcating identity and values consistent with a
commander’s vision of military performance generates combat power
by increasing the morale, motivation and commitment to mission of
the military force.
Military effectiveness
• there are likely to be complementarities between strategy and
motivation because a successful strategy can also shape
organisational identity and increase confidence and therefore
increase motivation.
The role of leaders in international conflicts.
• Effective leaders know how to bring conflict situations out
into the open so that all parties involved can begin to work
towards a resolution that will benefit everyone. They
manage conflicts in way that it is seen as an opportunity to build
productive relationships.
The role of leaders in international conflicts

• Leadership for sustaining peace is defined as: the processes that create

and nurture an empowering environment that unleashes the positive

energy and potential that exist in people, enabling them to resolve

conflict non-violently and to participate in co-charting a path towards

positive peace. 
The role of leaders in international conflicts
• Leadership for sustaining peace means leadership teams should
be prepared to assume responsibility to do no harm.
• The principles of doing no harm are part of long-standing
practice in the international humanitarian community, well
before they became a standard for other international
intervenors.