Introduction
Security studies is a sub discipline of international relations, established after WOI in the United Kingdom, having the desire to prevent a repetition of the horrors of the Great War (Collins 2016). While the roots of security studies can be traced back to Thucydides and Sun Tzu, the conception of security in the mind of many people, scholars and politicians is shaped by three fundamental moments in history: the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the French Revolution in 1789 and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 (Arreguin-Toft and Mingst 2013; Hale Held and Young 2013, 49-112). Thus the establishment of state sovereignty, human rights and international cooperation for international relations are important pillars when it comes to defining security. Collins (2016, 1), author of Contemporary Security Studies, defines the field of security studies as follows: “everything that has to do with threats”.
This vague description immediately reveals the contested nature of the key concept ‘security’. Depending on the theoretic framework in which security is explained, paradigms and the interpretation of security change (Meuleman and Roose 2014). This results in more or less inclusive definitions of security, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
Changing Definitions for Changing Times?
Before the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, there was little to no room for other voices than those who were studying the East-West confrontation (Lynn-Jones and Miller 1995). But when the Cold War ended the Copenhagen and English school gained a more prominent place on the stage of security studies, new frameworks emerged and the gap between the definitions of security widened (Collins 2016). Today the difference between the positivist and post-positivist tradition are wider than ever before. According to the latter, new threats emerged that rationalist/positivists ignore (Arreguin-Toft and Mingst 2013; Devos 2015). The positivists argue that the conception of security, according to post-positivists, an analytically useless concept is.
Although threats like extreme poverty, climate change, nationalism and migration existed during the Cold War, the primary concern was the dangers of a potential nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States of America (Lynn-Jones and Miller 1995; Hale Held and Young 2013). The fall of the Berlin Wall ended this threat. Although other potential nuclear conflicts still remain, scientist started to focus on other conflicts that are more likely to happen in the near future than a nuclear war.
The Delta Works are a direct response to an acute environmental threat, while the MDGs are designed in response to the 7 threats of human security.
The Millennium Development Goals
The MDGs, developed in 2000 by the United Nations, is the practical interpretation of a theoretic framework, in the case of MDGs human security. The conception of ‘security ‘ according to human security is build upon 7 pillars: economic, health, food, environment, community, personal and political security of an individual. A report by the United Nations Development Programme (2005, 6) explains why the MDGs and human security in general are important: “The Goals not only reflect global justice and human rights- they are also vital to international and national security and stability, as emphasised by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. Poor and hungry societies are much more likely than high-income societies to fall into conflict over scare vital resources, such as watering holes and arable land – and over scarce natural resources, such as oil, diamonds and timber.”
Environmental Threats: Delta Works
Are environmental changes not a bigger challenge for national security in many countries around the world (Hale Held and Young 2013, 3-15)? After the deadly North Sea flood of 1953 with 1836 recorded deaths in the Netherlands alone, the Dutch government installed the Delta Works Commission to defend the country against similar catastrophes in the future (Slager 2009). The result is a series of dams, sluices, locks, flood barriers, dykes etc. to protect the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta from the sea. For a country of which a quarter of its total territory is under sea level, rising sea levels, storm etc. are an enormous threat to national security. Although the works were finished in 2010 with the completion of the retainer wall near the city of Harlingen, due to climate change the Dutch government will be forced to keep investing in strengthening its defence against the sea. This conception of security is better covered by post-positivist theories, which take environmental challenges into account when defining security.
Security & Politics
Security belongs to the realm of ‘High Politics’ and according to Buzan (1991, 370) it’s “a powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition for governments attention”. On the one hand a wide variety of interpretations results in a flexible understanding of security, which is an advantage in an ever changing world, but on the other hand, the absence of consensus can also be abused by elites, politicians to push their own interest in the name of national security (Baldwin 1997, 9).
Different Approaches to Security
The two oldest theoretical perspectives of international relations, realism and liberalism, are part of the rational tradition which focuses on a state-level analysis (Arreguin-Toft and Mingst 2013; Collins 2016). While the realist scholars see the international system as anarchic and plagued by violence, states are trapped by the security dilemma to preserve their national interest and remain free from attack or coercion by other states. Liberals see the world more optimistic and believe that cooperation among international actors could result in a peaceful world, but the international system depends on the nature of its members/states – who are in turn shaped by elites and officials preferences and decisions. Or in other words, the liberals leave some room for non-state actors in their theories and believe that world peace is possible, unlike the realists, who solely focus on states in a violent and conflict ridden international system.
In other theoretic frameworks like historic materialism, peace studies, social constructivism and human security see the focus shifts to capitalism, structural violence, economic dependence of the former colonies, gender, poverty, the environment, identity and the individual (Collins 2016). While historic materialism focuses on class division and class conflict in the tradition of Marxist theory, other frameworks take the division between the Global North and Global South and the conditions for an individual to live secure into account in their study on security.
Essentially Contested Concept
According to Gallie (1956, 169) essentially contested concepts are “concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users.” In his essay Gallie identifies seven criteria that characterise essentially contested concepts, he indicates them by using Roman Numerals: (I) their appraise character, (II) their internal complexity, (III) their diverse describability, (IV) their openness, (V) their reciprocal recognition of their contested character among contending parties, (VI) an original exemplar that anchors conceptual meaning and (VII) their progressive competition, though which greater coherence of conceptual usage can be achieved (Gallie 1956, 171-188; Collier 2006, 212). Democracy, social justice, rule of law etc. all meet the Gallie’s criteria of an essentially contested concept, but does security meet them as well?
When we use a radical orthodox interpretation of Gallie’s standards, security is not an essentially contested concept (Baldwin 1997, Collier 2006). It simply does not meet all of the 7 criteria of an essentially contested concept. Before moving on, it’s important to ask the following question: “Did Gallie intend for the 7 criteria to be used as literal checks for evaluating concepts or simply as guidelines?” The main justification for following the seven criteria literally is to limit the number of essentially contested concepts, since radical sceptical nihilist argue that there is no reason to prefer one conception of these value laden concepts over another. But when a lot is at stake both in the scientific field and in daily policy making, it’s preferable to have a strictly defined conception of security. On the other hand, an essentially contested concept allows for flexibility in a changing world.
First of all security is not an appraisive concept for most theoretic frameworks, since it does not accredits some kind of valued achievement. The one exception is neorealism, which sees security as the main objective of a state and the state which is better at securing its national security is the ‘champion’ in the international system. But is it not a quintessential part of an essentially contested concept to have a dispute over the properties of a concept? And since the neorealist theorists see security as an appraisive concept, does this not implicate that security qualifies for this criterion?
The second criterion security does not meet is that there is a lack of vigorous disputes over the nature of security and its application (Baldwin 1997). Gallie rules out policy disputes, since theses disagreements are more concerned over allocation of resources than deep philosophical disagreements. Writers often fail to provide any definition of security, ignore the position of others or don’t justify the reason why a given definition is chosen. Has a dispute or disagreement over the nature of a concept to be verbal? Is the fact that scientist ignore each other not a classic example of disagreement? Furthermore it’s not because the debate over the concept of security takes centre stage at the moment, that it won’t be important in the future. It’s not because security is a neglected concept, that it can’t be an essentially contested concept at the same time.
Summary
Today many different theoretic frameworks are used in security studies, each using a different conception of the key concept ‘security’. Looking at all the different conceptions of security, the biggest problem is deciding for whom, for which values, how much security and from what threats. In any way, this wide variety of definition results in scientists talking past each other or even completely ignoring one another. The different conceptions are also an opportunity, since security studies as one cover a wide variety of possible threats, it gives security studies a lot of flexibility and it makes it possible to analyse a wide variety of conflicts, threats and unrest. Even in policy making this plurality of understanding can be positive, allowing politicians to be flexible and to react quickly to changing circumstances. But the threat of manipulation, described by Buzan, remains.
Looking at the definition of security studies by Collins (2016, 1) -“everything to do with threats” – we see another problem. This vague and useless definition allows people to keep interpreting security like they wish. The ambiguity of the definition of security studies could of course be the result of the absence of a generally accepted definition of security. But it is also an example of the what a definition would probably look like, an umbrella term that could be complemented with an individual scientist views, criteria and beliefs. Although this happens today, everyone knows the essentially contested status of the concept security. Making sure people won’t start comparing apples with oranges, when they read, analyse or apply an already existing theory or study.