International Relations
Clifford Ncube
Tutor: Megan Bybee
Word count: 1980 (excluding referencing). 2101 including referencing.
Using core IR theories explain why security is a contested concept?
Security can be defined as the ability to thwart internal and external threats of a nation (Lawson, 2003: 78). As a concept however this is a very broad term and within its broad term lies why it has become a contested concept even in this post-cold war era. The IR theories – especially the Realist and liberalist theories – shall be used in the following essay in unearthing the real issues behind security and why it remains the talk of this new era.
To begin with, security is heart of every foreign policy of any state but the question of what constitutes being secure, security breach or generally in what context security shall be viewed opens doors to a lot of interpretations. Realists view the concept of security from a traditional perspective, which meant military, war to mention a few (Lawson, 2003: 80). This is the underlying idea behind the security that the realists seem to be addressing. As they believe in an anarchic international system where the state is the actor which is power hungry, self-serving and only concerned with its survival, their view of security has everything to do with the respective state in the international community. In other words the state fights for its protection and survival in the international sphere through war or military prowess. But the application of this theory in a quiet and peaceful world becomes problematic. A good example is now that there is peace, how does one explain peace. Even though the realists explain the peace time as being an artificially construed and temporary thing, and war being natural way the international sphere, their argument does not hold much water especially when met with liberalist views on International relations. One must stress out that the realist theory was a very much accepted and may even still be accepted because
Tutor: Megan Bybee
Word count: 1980 (excluding referencing). 2101 including referencing.
Using core IR theories explain why security is a contested concept?
Security can be defined as the ability to thwart internal and external threats of a nation (Lawson, 2003: 78). As a concept however this is a very broad term and within its broad term lies why it has become a contested concept even in this post-cold war era. The IR theories – especially the Realist and liberalist theories – shall be used in the following essay in unearthing the real issues behind security and why it remains the talk of this new era.
To begin with, security is heart of every foreign policy of any state but the question of what constitutes being secure, security breach or generally in what context security shall be viewed opens doors to a lot of interpretations. Realists view the concept of security from a traditional perspective, which meant military, war to mention a few (Lawson, 2003: 80). This is the underlying idea behind the security that the realists seem to be addressing. As they believe in an anarchic international system where the state is the actor which is power hungry, self-serving and only concerned with its survival, their view of security has everything to do with the respective state in the international community. In other words the state fights for its protection and survival in the international sphere through war or military prowess. But the application of this theory in a quiet and peaceful world becomes problematic. A good example is now that there is peace, how does one explain peace. Even though the realists explain the peace time as being an artificially construed and temporary thing, and war being natural way the international sphere, their argument does not hold much water especially when met with liberalist views on International relations. One must stress out that the realist theory was a very much accepted and may even still be accepted because
References: Oatley, T. 2006. International political economy. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Education Cohn, T. 2005. The Global Political Economy. 3rd ed. New York: Pearson Education. Mingst, A. K. & Arrenguin, M. I. 2011. Contending Perspectives: How to think about International Relations Coherently, Essentials of International Relations. 5th ed. New York: WW Norton & Company. Lawson, S. 2003. International Relations. Cambridge: Polity. Buzan, B. 1997. Rethinking Security after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 32, No. 1: 5-28. Downs, G.W. 1994. Part 1. Theoretical Perspectives, in Collective Security Beyond the Cold War. United States of America: The University of Michigan Press: 17-40.