Theorising non-traditional security

1. Theorising non-traditional security aaw

2. introduction • Near obsolesence of large-sace great power war meets uncertainties, produced by: • Environmental and demographic pressures • Civil war • Resentment at inequalities in north-south relations • Unipolar distribution of power What can IR theories do to identify regularities, continuities, and longer term dynamics

3. Two types of theoretical enquiry • Explanatory theory • Seeks to explain and understand why certain events have taken place • Normative theory Provides convincing case for how things should be, based on moral assumptions about IR and possibilities for change

4. Spectrum of security conceptions Spectrum of approaches: Reductionist rational choice Sociologically inspired constructivism: reality is mutually constituted through intersubjective understanding and constructions Spectrum of paradigms: Sceptical conception of possibilities of normative change Optimistic understanding of these possibilities

5. Shift in popularity of conceptions • Shift in popularity from rationalist to constructivist explanations of how to study international security. • Shift in popularity from towards more optimistic assesment of possibilities and need for change, the strengthening of cosmopolitan and universalist conceptualization of international security.

6. Two dangers • Danger of radical relativism, international security as mere artificial construction of ideas. Historical sociology can help avoid this. • Danger of excessive expectations on humanitarianism, while in reality selfish national interest always drives international development projects. Realism is needed to provide checks on avoiding overly optimistic expectations.

7. Realist key assumptions • International realm or system is anarchic  influenced Cold War era’s international cooperation that always bowed down to devided conceptions of political order and domestic legitimacy; • Capability to inflict damage and harm on others defines catagorization of units  influenced by Cold War’s obsession with threat of war; • States are fearful of other states and thus the system is self-help  influenced by limited success at attempting cooperation during detente. Anarchy and distrust undermines cooperation. • Overall impact on ISS: central focus of research on prepraration, use and threat of use of force.

8. Realism after the Cold War • Realism predicts the future of US hegemony, whether leads to sustained unipolarity or multipolarity; future of cold war alliances and counter-terrorism alliances after 911; legitimacy of unilateral pre-emption; scepticism about multilateralism and int’l institutions. • Offensive defense: great powers are inherently aggressive, states are disposed to think offensively; readiness to engage in war and maximazation of power guaratees advantage. • Defensive: once states survive they will want to maintain their positions in the system. State’s perceptions towards other states can affect the formation of alliances

9. Neo-liberalism’s argument • With the same rationalist approach and core assumptions of realism, international cooperation could be generated. • States might be induced to seek gains that could benefit everyone without worrying distribution of gains. • Nato showed that institutionalized cooperation outlast realist-driven conditions of an institution.

10. Constructivist turn • Anarchy, sovereignty, and inevitability of war are all being called into question. • Anarchy depends on the meaning or interpretation of international facts by states and the sharing of that mening among states. • Sovereignty depends on what states count as national and international.

11. How ideas and perceptions influence and structure international realities. • For example: deligimation of imperialism, overthrow of apertheid, emergence of international rights regimes; influence of epistemic community in influencing international affairs without state support, as occured in campaign against land mines. • How identity and culture replaces ideologies as drivers of conflicts. As rationalist theories are not able to provide explanation on how identities emerge, constructivists with insights from sociology of nationalism argue that national identities are modern constructions and do not represent unchanging primordial essence. For example: explanation of conflicts in former Yugoslavia.

12. Constructivists are able to explain differences of national security culture among western states. For example: how germany and japan developed cautious, introspective, non-interventionist and eschewed great power military status; why EU is having difficulty to develop effective security policy because of different cultures of security; transatlantic tensions over war in Iraq. • Constructivists influence human security and critical security because of its ability to perceive security as not belonging exclusively to the state.

13. Securitization • An issue or problem is identified as a security issue through a process that constitutes speech act that involves securitization, in which an issue is presented as an existential threat to a specific referent object. • Existential threat requires exceptional measure and/or emergency action to deal with it. • Security is then extended beyond traditional politico-military sphereto five discreet political, economic, environmental, military, societal.

14. Security is culturally and historically influenced; popular pressures and manipulation of elites determine intersubjective understanding of international security. • Security is not just property of states, but also identity-based social forces, regional and international institutions, the planet.

15. Securitization problems • Securitization is purely speech act, with no direct correspondence to external reality. Thus no account of security will be privileged over others. • Tends to isolate security as a value and separate the realm of politics from real of security. Securitization thus presents something as black and white, security or not security. Thus moral debate over security is taken away, even though security is not always an evil to repressed. • Eurocentric focus of research agenda, concerning postmodern implications of European integration.

16. Incorporating Historical Sociology • Concern on the finding via media between rationalist and post modern approaches, between unversalizing theory and anti-foundational theory. • Committed to identify and explain causal linkages; epistemoligically committed to ontological realism (one has to act as if there were independent reality).

17. Facts can only be interpreted within particular theoretical construcs and meaning system. • Ideas are not privileged over material factors in explaining international change. Material sources of power affect political gains and conflict. Meanwhile, legitimacy and presumed authority of those who seek to wield power are connected to material sources of power. • Ideologies are often crude exercises in manipulation to gain material sources of power.

18. States are primary actor in international system, not because their sovereignty to use force within their territory (and beyond) is unmatched by other entities, but because their relations with other social forces and their varying capacity to discipline them. • States continually strive to provide security and state-society relations are always constantly important to be discussed. • Providing realistic theoretical voice to the south, where janus-faced nature of the state can be understood.

19. humanSecurity • Perceived cold war as overemphasising state security to the detriment of people who suffered and died at the hands of the state. • Adopted a cosmopolitan and universalist tradition of liberal internationalism, placing military interstate coflicts as ignoring millions who are trapped in nexus of poverty, underdevelopment, civil war.

20. criticalSecurity • Cosmopolitan commitment of human security; anti-statist; anti-realist security. • Sceptic towards liberal internationalism that underpins human security, showing intellectual roots in radical neo-marxist tradition. • For critical theorists, human security can be utilized to securitize economic and political issues and justify pre-emptive intervention.

21. In terms oc security critical theory aspires to switch attention away from security to human emancipation. • Security is perceived as a tool that defines states’ interests and their need to posit enemy other. It acts as oppression instrument, prioritising the state and the powerful over the weak.

22. criticalSecurity contribution • Security conceptions reflect particular security fears and concerns of the north vis-a-vis incoming threats from developing south. Sometimes conceptions act as displacement mechanism. Critical security accounts the post cold war linkage between security, development, and democracy as showing a motivation to subdue threat coming from poorer south than by genuine commitment to development. • Identification of masculinist logic and grammar of security. War have perpetually relied on distinction between male violence and female passivity.

23. What criticalSecurity cannot do • Critical security cannot supplant problem-solving traditional IR theory, for its lack of clear definition of emancipated world, and its tendency to deconstruct and reveal political power behind existing system of meaning, without trying to construct an alternative meaning. • Postmodernist critical security showed that critical security is treated as a priori negative concept and thus needs to be transcended through emancipation. Critical security cannot treat security as a core human value that must be balanced with other values: freedom, justice, prosperity.

24. Is realism void of moral consideration? • Following political philosophy of Machiavelli and Hobbes, traditionally realism defines IR exclusively in pursuit of politico-military advantage, with moral consideration playing a minimal role. • On the other hand, most of policies that are engineered towards better conduct of IR are advocated by realists. • Realists do not reject moral considerations, but they question the boundaries of these considerations. • They do not reject liberalism in total, only particular form of it: cosmopolitan liberalism.

25. Realism emphasises the need to take full account of the likely intended and unintended consequences of pursuing moral goals in the absence of an orderer to punish wrong-doers and reward virtuous. Failure to consider these may result in policies that make situations worse. Indeed, realists are often strongest warnings against liberal expansionism.

26. Realism’s liberal normative commitment is not non-existent, but rather is derived from liberal communitarian tradition. • This tradition of liberalism rejects liberal internationalism and adopts moral subjectivism  moral action should first consider limits of moral sympathies. • Realists prioritise normative priority to home states rather than foreign states. Greater sympathy and stronger moral commitment goes to communities in which we live and have our meaning.

27. There’s a dark place inside everyone. What we do with it depends not on who our teachers are, but what we do with the lessons learned.