approaches to security – a global public good?

Approaches to Security –a global public good?

Jens Stærdahl,

Associate Professor, ENSPAC

Agenda

1. What is security about

2. Neo-realism, the dominant approach

3. 8 alternative approaches

4. Characterising Sandler’s “Global Collective Action”.

5. Discussion

Concepts and Theories about Security

• Theme: Security– Dominant understanding: Security of states

• Empirical reference: Issues related to security– Dominant reference: State security and International relations

• Empirical milestones:– End of the cold war– Globalisation– 9/11 2001

– Dominating interpretation: Change from bi-polarity to uni-polarity. Some conditions have changed but the main feature is still states pursuing security interests under conditions of anarchy.

What is security?

• “Implies freedom form threats to core values”

• Traditional focus on military capabilities of own state to face the threats of others

• Some debates:• focus individual, national or international?• Include political, economic, societal, environmental

as well as military aspects?• Global security treats require a global answer?• What makes an issue a security issue?

(Neo-)realist interpretation

• Anarchic international system

• State sovereignty -> development of offensive military capabilities -> states potential dangerous to each other

• Uncertainty -> lack of trust of other states -> states always on their guard

• Sovereignty -> survival as driving force

Neo-realism about co-operation

• Security dilemma: “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of state to look after their security needs, tend regardless of intention to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz 1950: 157 in BS pp. 303)

– Cooperation is possible, but limited due to• Fear that other states might cheat• The importance of relative gains

Eight approaches towards international security

1. Contingent Realism2. Mature Anarchy3. Liberal Institutionalism4. Democratic Peace Theory5. Ideas of Collective

Security6. Social Constructivist

theory7. Critical security studies8. Globalist viewsReference: Baylis, John (2005) International and global

security in the post-cold era in Baylis and Smith (eds.) The globalization of world politics

Realism and neo-realism has for many years been, and still is, the dominant conceptualisation of international security. These 8 approaches can be conceptualised as corrections to the neo-realist approach.

Contingent Realism

1. Contingent Realism2. Mature Anarchy3. Liberal Institutionalism4. Democratic Peace Theory5. Ideas of Collective Security6. Social Constructivist theory7. Critical security studies8. Globalist views

The tendency to compete is not a inevitable logic consequence of the assumptions in neo-realism.

1. Self-help does not necessarily lead to competition. States might instead prefer cooperation to reduce uncertainty

2. States often prefer cooperation instead of pursuing relative gains, in order to avoid sparking of a new round of competition

3. The emphasis on cheating in neo-realist thinking is overdone

Relevant example: Arms reductions agreements during cold war

A scholar: Charles Glaser

Mature Anarchy


There is a tendency for ‘mature’ states to recognize that there are good security reasons for taking the interests of other states into account when making own policies, and that excessively self-referenced security polices are ultimately self-defeating

Example: Security community in the Nordic countries; The cooperation of the European states within the EU

A scholar: Barry Buzan

Liberal Institutionalism


Neo-realists are wrong when they claim that institutions are not very important in prevention of war.

“Institutions can provide information, reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for coordination and in general facilitate the operation of reciprocity” (Keohane and Martin 1995: 42 pp. 308 in B&S)

Example: The EU, Nato, WEU and OSCE

A scholar: Robert Keohane

Democratic Peace Theory

1. Contingent Realism

2. Mature Anarchy

3. Liberal Institutionalism

4. Democratic Peace Theory

5. Ideas of Collective Security

6. Social Constructivist theory

7. Critical security studies

8. Globalist views

Liberal democracies make a bigger difference in international politics than realist writers accept: in cases of conflict liberal states normally choose not to fight or threaten each other.

Democratic states of peace-prone due to: • democratic presentation• an ideological commitment to human

rights• transnational interdependence

Example: Western European policy to promote democracy and Eastern Europe after the cold war.

Scholars: Michal Doyle and Bruce Russett

Ideas of Collective Security


State behaviour is not simply the product of structure. Ideas are also important

Under collective security states must agree on certain norms and rules:

1. Renounce on the use of military force to change status quo

2. Broaden their concept of national interest to include the interest of the international community as a whole

3. Overcome the fear that dominate world politics and learn to thrust each other

Example: League of Nations; UN security council (?)

Scholars: Charles and Clifford Kupchan

Social Constructivist theory


Fundamental structures of international relations are social rather than strictly material – the way we think about international relations matters

Social structures made up of knowledge, material resources and practices.

E.g. the security dilemma is a social structure composed of inter-subjective understandings – Anarchy is what states make of it

Example: The way Gorbachev ended the cold war

A scholar: Alexander Wendt

Critical security studies


The states have been given too much prominence in security

Critical theory and emancipation:Attention should be focused on the individual, as states are sometimes part of the problem. Security can best be assured through human emancipation (Robert Cox, Booth Jones)

‘Feminist’ approaches:‘Nowhere is the state more gendered in the sense of how power is dispersed than in the security apparatus’. Bringing in gender will bring new issues and perspectives on the security agenda (Cynthia Enloe)

Post-modernist views:‘Realism’, a discourse of power and rule, is one central problem of international insecurity. Change to a ‘software’ of cooperative norms will change international relations (Jim George)

Globalist views


Globalisation has reached a point were a global society is emerging at the same time making territorial conflicts obsolete and producing new risks related to the environment, poverty, WMD and terrorism.

Fragmentation of nation-states giving rise to new forms of insecurity caused by nationalistic, ethnic and religious rivalries.

A new politics of global responsibility is needed.

Example: Civil wars in Bosnia, Somalia etc. and humanitarian interventions

A Scholar: Mary Kaldor

A - draft – characterisation of the public good approach to security

• Security is both an issue for states, communities and individuals• Security ought to be provided to the level were absolute welfare is

maximised.• States are the main providers of security. States act as rational unitary

actors pursuing absolute wealth. • Security is an undersupplied public good due to the asymmetries between

costs and benefits for each individual agent – “who should bell the cat”Critics: Too much focus on absolute wealth, no understanding of the

importance of survival of states as driving force, the competition between states, and the security dilemma.

Pros: A new framing of the need for international peace and prosperity

Does it fit any of the boxes above? Basic premises close to liberal institutionalism.

Sandler’s perceptions of through which mechanisms international treaties influence state behaviour is unclear to me.

Discussion questions

1. Do you agree with the characterisation of the public goods approach to security?

2. Are the game-theoretic assumptions in the approach productive for useful analysis:

* rational actors pursuing interests * interest is absolute wealth * pay-off structure of different actions is known

Neo-realists

Neo-liberalists

Constructivists

The states relativepower

Assessment of policy Alternatives in relation to relative power based on existing knowledge

policy

Decisive factorTheoretical Scholl Process Result

The states identity Clarification of the characterof the situation and available policy alternatives. Choice ofthe most appropriate alternative

policy

Newinstitutionalism

Copying from successful states

policy

The states absolute wealth

Assessment of policy Alternatives in relation to absolute wealth based on existing knowledge

policy

(Meyer, DiMaggio & Powell)

(March & Olsen)

The dominant norms ofthe state

Assessment of policies in relation to norms on the basisof dominant understanding of cause-effect relations

policy

International organisations and regimes

(Supplement to the rationalist theories)

Assum

ptions

Information

requirements

Declining

Rising

How states know what they want?

Georgia

approaches to security – a global public good?

Documents