The “security studies” is an important sub-theory of International Relations that deals with the explanatory and implementation of security framework in order to develop external and internal policies and understand the principal structures and procedures under international politics ambiance. Security studies incorporates other domains such climate change issues, geographical and human challenges. Some important works were conducted in reference to security, although, in a very general manner. Security matters for States sovereignty and for the components that compose the States itself. It is a core of primordial consideration to the IR studies. Security issues do not only interests actors and international system mechanisms, but as well, give attention to human safety, which has been, recently, the most important concerned under security theories.
The security studies field is the “research field dealing with procedures through which actors utilize their military assets to achieve given political objectives”. Most of researchers apply a pragmatic theoretical work on different types of security and securitization, being more predominant the regional, global and human security forms. Critical security studies, feminist security studies, Post-colonial Security studies, poststructuralist Security Studies and Strategic Studies are some of the brands of school and thought developing the conceptualization and the practice of Security in multiple manners. Walt seeks Security studies as “the study of the threat, use, and control of military force”. The International Security Studies theory gained importance in the aftermath of I World War, where national security became a real concern in the International relations agenda. It has been developed in middle of 1970s, but not worked massively till the end of Cold war. During Cold War Era, Strategic and Peace Studies were important research fields in International Relations. Clearly, Tarak Barkawi defines strategy and war processes by indicate that “Strategy concerns how to prevail in war, and more broadly how to use military force among other instrumentalities to achieve political ends. It is not about the study of war per se.” Similarly, Baylis affirms that strategy studies focus on the role of military power but admits the precarious limitations comparing to Security Studies. Concretely, the second phase of Cold War was marked by progression of these areas due the events and developments in the system, reflecting into the initiation and focus in security studies. Security studies can be divided into three main waves:
I. Between wars period/strategic and Peace studies: Security studies were very narrow towards the definition of War and Peace, armament, strategy, states relation with politics, diplomacy among others. Most of writings were based more a reductive perception of World politics and Strategic goals to States behaviour. Inclusively, most of the writings of IR scholars would not develop the conceptual frame of security and politics, also as a result of the precarious digital and technological access to data information and given the importance to the causes and consequences of War and other threats. The main subject of study is military issues, such Peace, War and Strategy, since it was limited to diplomacy history and military background.
II. Middle of cold war/traditional security studies approach: understood as the “study of threat, employment and control of military power”. In traditional security perspective, much dominated by Realism theory, security is often defined by the “measures taken by States to ensure the safety of their citizens, the protection of their way of life and the survival of their Nation State”. The traditional scholars mainly focus on four main areas: inter-state war, territorial disputes, security dilemmas and arms races and arms control. Respectively, in the Deterrence theory, the critics and relevant writings came from academicians that had alongside links to State’s agencies. Forehead, the study of War and conflict stagnated, caused by external events such Soviet Détente and U.S policies prioritizing International political economy. According to Walt, throughout the mid-1970s, the recovery of security studies in IR was facilitated by the end of Vietnam War, the decision to sponsor projects under the frame of security academic centres by Ford Foundation and the general financial support of International security.
III. Late and post-Cold war / new and critical security studies approach. It is based in the introduction of new developments in security studies through historical analysis of security affairs and alliances, as the critical acknowledgment of new useful results of Deterrence theory and Nuclear Weapons. Hence, it includes the radical and orthodox conceptualization of security in different forms. They give importance to other fields such economy, politics, culture, social, environmental and human through security structure and processes analyses. The modern security approach in International Relations is essentially the importance given to state-individual necessities, concerning other kind of threats such Poverty, Disease, Water crisis and so on, also considering new theories as theoretical approaches to Security and Securitization. Security studies have been an issue of master importance for the recent theories of IR. Notably, the contributions to the study of Security was visible by the critical approaches developed mainly by European security schools and by the critical security studies theorists, concretely Frankfurt School through Ken Booth and Richard Wyn Jones and the post-structuralism scholars, such Mike Williams, Rob Walker, David Campbell. Undoubtedly, Feminist security theorists, post-modernists as other trends in International relations defined security as a focus of understanding and demystify the causes and the main threats which occur in a determinant place and time.
1.1 Two Concepts: Security and Securitization
The principal idea in this part is define the concept of security and securitization in the realm of International relations theory. Both concepts have different definitions depending on the field that is being approach. The main feature of both concepts in International Relations is the security issues analysis derived of their interrelation, which produces new developments that can be incorporated within opposite theories such Realism, Constructivism, post-structuralism and others. International Security policy during Cold War was perceived as “Stable management of the relations between two heavily militarized blocs that shared a common interest in avoiding direct confrontation, but nevertheless remained deeply divided along ideological lines”.
Stephen Walt minded security as the study of “phenomenon of war”. Security is a fundamental goal, currently approached in International relations to explain the main threats affecting States and politics. Hence, security is not a theory but a methodological tool to undermine and evaluate conflict, danger and negative causes derived from political, socio-economical, and environmental among others origins, that aggressively threat the state and the elements that secure the sovereignty of the nations. For Buzan, Peace and War are two complementary concepts of Security by arguing that “the security view accepts the moral imperative against war, the need to concentrate on harmonious relationships, and the need to concentrate on both individuals and the system as a whole”. Since Security assumes different forms of acting in World politics, power is perceived as a fundamental factor in anarchy but not the only to determine the decisions when States must act. Buzan further refers the role of individuals in shape security forms in International system: “Politically strong States cannot be built without consideration for the individuals within them”. To Ole Waever, Security “is the result of a move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue as above normal politics” and “Securitisation can thus be seen as a more extreme version of politicisation”. The idea of Securitization can be considered as the most important innovation in the new security studies, occurred in the aftermath of Berlin Wall fall. The term succumbed as a theory, culminating in the fusion of the different ideas between the “orthodox” and “modern” meanings of security. Military power continued to be a relevant subject of study among security theorists, namely since arms control and statecraft were importantly related with capability and military condition of states, however other subjects were including in the new security approach in IR domain. In the line of realist thought, Ole Waever considers Security as a matter of survival as realists consider the scrutiny survival of States. He points out that “The designation of the threat as existential justifies the use of extraordinary measures to handle it. The invocation of security has been the key to legitimising the use of force, and more generally opening the way for the state to mobilise or to take special power”. Concerning the possible “threats” in international politics, Rita Floyd developed a particularly view of Securitization theory, by considering the existential threats as a matter of security and giving importance to the theory of securitization as “one of the most influential non-traditional security theories in existence” , admitting however that the securitization theoretical approach should only occur while an objective threat exists.
Securitization as a preeminent theory in the International Relations realm was for the first time formulated by the members of Copenhagen School, Ole Waever in 1995 and pragmatically developed by Barry Buzan et al. in 1998. Broadly, the Securitization Theory has brought implications into the structure and methods of Security itself. Nearly, it was introduced theoretical perspectives, as main theories and concepts of security studies to analyse international Security, such the debates in International Security Studies about world choices which served more than a periphery center for policymakers. The theory has been developed mainly in Europe, and most of the empirical approach has been based in European historical events. Similarly, the theory of securitization is perceived beyond the characteristics of the changes from political to security constraints, resulting consequently in the definition and shaping of security paradigm. The “speaking security” is one of the tools that lead to the above statement. In other words, security turns into a central thematic of International politics. Nonetheless, it is important to consider the actors, individuals, threats, and international system changes, environmental, regional, national, global and human forms of security.
2 SECURITY ANALYSIS IN NEOREALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM THEORIES
In International Relations Theory, Neo-liberalism and Neo-Realism have important functions concerning the changes and dynamics of World politics. For instance, Neoliberals seek how States face threats and Neorealists are expected to explain the elements that compose and influence the States conduct. The ongoing debate among the two most valid paradigms in international relations in the 1980s is the neo-neo debate. Neorealists focus on areas of security, power balance, military and state continuity. According to neoliberals, the only agenda of international relations is not essentially security issues, but it focus on the importance of other matters such political economy, prosperity, modernization, environment and human rights. Neoliberals optimist view of International system, direct the role of States and Individuals into a cooperative economic integration, with more balances, but always searching for effective security.
Neoliberals and Neorealists share some important views of world Affairs. For instance, both agree on the importance of States-power on International System order. Simultaneously, both consider that the understanding of the structure of the International system has an essential component for the Conception of World Politics. Indeed, they reinforce the idea of International System decentralization; this means that the changes and dynamics of Foreign affairs and international politics provoke a heterogenic character of International Relations. Neorealism has developed a theory based in Lakatos standards, by fostering Realism which was weak in scientific explanations. Agreeing on Lakatos criteria, the theory soon approximated to the main assumptions, leading to a more scientific theorization of Realism. Kenneth Waltz had explained the different political systems and states with different ideologies through the structure of the international system. According to Waltz, this structural system is one of the conditions limiting and circumstantial provoking effects on foreign policy. The traditional realist thinkers regarded the interactions of states as a natural outcome only by taking care of the results. In addition, classical realists have tied the desire for power to human nature, and Morgenthau has set the point of view that the rational statesman must pursue constant force and that power is always a goal in itself. Waltz has argued that states are looking for power mainly due the anarchic nature of the international system, not in reason of human nature. In fact, what States need to worry about is ensuring security, not power. Like classical realists, Waltz calls carefully the internationalism disorder, having states as the central of anarchy. Structural Realism was criticized by many theorists; hence Neorealists can explain rationally the powerful distinction between Foreign Policy and International Relations.
The liberal theory concept of Security relies in four main components: International Law, International Organizations, Political Integration and Democratization. Neoliberalism is a very comprehensive paradigm and a number of assumptions have been developed in this context. In particular, institutionalism also referred to as institutionalism liberalism or neo-idealism, claims that both international and non-governmental organizations will increase cooperation between states. The integration in the EU process has touched on the functioning of peace in the theories. Another liberal theoretical approach in Liberalism approach is the Interdependence Theory. It affirms that the increased interdependence in international relations increases the negative impact of the war so that the probability of war happen between them is slowly decreasing. Republican liberalism, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that democratic countries are “peace susceptible makers”, with the increase of liberal democratic systems. Because democratic countries share the same common values, they do not easily fight, and democratic institutions and the public have the role of preventing states from entering the war. The other is social liberalism, along with the increase of international activities and civil society, people become interconnected with each other and thus the inter-government relations become more dependent and the possibility of war is reduced. Political Liberalism brought some interesting innovations, especially on social sciences and Human Nature approaches .In the words of Scott Burchill, “Liberals believe that progress in human history can be measured by the elimination of global conflict and the adoption of principles of legitimacy that have evolved in domestic political orders”. Liberals do not deny the significant role of military struggle in International politics. The importance of Military Interdependence on World Politics is inequitable. Indeed, Neoliberals do not contradict its role on International Relations. Additionally, Neoliberal theorists embrace the “complex interdependence” as the efficacy method that edges mutual agreements among governments.
2.1 REALISM THEORY
The neorealist theory approach to International relations and respectively to World politics was characterised by challenges and constraints back to Cold War and after Cold War Era. During that time, the contributions of E.H. Carr in The Twenty year’s crisis (1939) and Hans Morgenthau’s in Politics among Nations (1948) demonstrate the importance of International Relations as a subject on the analyses of global politics. There are six main trends of Realism thinking: Classical realism, neo-realism/structural realism, Defensive Realism, Offensive Realism, Neo-Classical realism and Rise and Fall Realism. This part will focus essential on Structural Realism, since it is the most dominant branch in Realism Theory.
2.1.1 Security in Realist and Neorealist Approaches
For Structural Realists, Human Nature is not that important for the understanding the power-state relations. The realist point of view towards global politics mainly concerns the States behaviour in the International System, enforcing that structure determines how states behave and anarchy is the key realm in International System that explains how states will manage their own security. For realists, anarchy is a determinant factor for States power and guidance in World politics scene that by themselves are the key actors of World politics. Kenneth Waltz stated the anarchic system and States actions and perceptions towards threats or dangers that threat the Nation itself go to the stage of “self-help”. By so, in realist perspective, there is not a high authority in the system and the anarchy which characterizes the system itself reflects the “self-help” condition of the States sovereignty. In the Self-help systems “the pressures of competition weigh / more heavily than ideological preferences or internal political pressures”.
Neorealists argue that the maintenance of the state and the maintenance of the national interest are rooted in the basic feature of the international system. Around a power-based system states have to survive and provide bans in a shaped competitive environment. The realist approach to security resumes to the military use of force and the distribution of capability among the units that shape the structure of International System. Depending on how the force is being used, worldwide conflicts, border disputes, sectarian and ethnic conflicts will tend to increase or decrease. The party or parties holding the power have the right to set an international agenda and will perceive threat perceptions that may arise due to the anarchic nature of the system in their own interests. The key for the deep understanding of the system is how states relate with other states in order to defend its interests and pursue favourable leading policies in all levels. Theoretically, the most important concept in understanding and interpreting international relations is undoubtedly power.
Inside of Realism approach, some theorists perceive States has actors that should contain and defend themselves from external threats and others that argue that States should be hegemonic, conceiving the dominance of World to act freely in International politics. Krause, on the other hand, criticizes the simplified form that realists define security, claiming three main constraints: the first refers to the lack in defining Security. For Krause, security involves more than military or power strategies. Second, the refusal of security cannot be incorporated in other fields. Security is a broaden concept and is not limited to realist reductive overviews. Last, defining States as the only main actors in World politics do not concern fully security, since erase completely the analysis of non-state actors that play an important role in the definition of security strategies.
The realist approach is wide and the different opinions varied from two main trends: Defensive and Offensive/structural realism. In United States inclusively, two main problems for the rejection of U.S policymakers towards the realism approaches to foreign policy were exposed by John J. Mearsheimer. First, the pessimist view of International politics and the conflict as a unstop phenomenon. Second, the states behave on the same way and there is not an exact differentiation between better or terrible States.
In matters of Security, both Waltz and Mearsheimer agree that target goal is to attain security; however they differ in the relation of security and power. For Waltz, States seek security by maintaining their relative power vis-à-vis others. While Mearsheimer demonstrates to pursue security states must be very powerful and eliminate their rivals. This is the only way to accomplish security level. Also, States must aspire to become global hegemony, or at least dominate the region that composes the State itself. The last statement shows the Mearsheimer perspective towards security and States, embedding that defining an expansionist policy allow States to be secure against others. According to Mearsheimer, states use power as a tool to become hegemony, and the ultimate goal is to preserve the existence of the state in the future.