7.3: Theories and Approaches to Global Security

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare and contrast the two major theories in international relations regarding security
• Comprehend the alternative perspectives to security, including social constructivism and critical approaches

Introduction

As seen in the previous discussion in Section 7.2, global security can be researched through International Relations (IR) theory. In IR, there are two traditional theories that help in contextualizing global security: realism and liberal internationalism. Realism and liberal internationalism are often considered oppositional, as realists focus on competition between actors, whereas liberal institutionalism focuses on cooperation. However, both theories share some assumptions that make them comparable. Alternatively, several newer approaches have developed, most notably social constructivism, which focuses on the relational aspects of identities to understand how one state views another state. There are also critical theories, which places primacy on the role of economics in explaining global phenomena, and are rooted in the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and other early political economists. A final theoretical framework we will examine is feminism.

Realism and Security

Realism draws upon a complex and rich theoretical perspective. As a theory, it utilizes the work of noted historical scholars, such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. As such, there are quite a few variants and interpretations, including realpolitik, structured realism, and neorealism. Despite this variety, realism as a worldview has certain characteristics. For example, proponents of realism view security as the key issue in global affairs. Realists dismiss economic concerns, issues of development, and internal domestic situations, such as civil rights, education, and health care, referring to these topics as second-tier concerns. Thus, for realists, providing for one’s own security becomes the most important responsibility. Realists have a pessimistic view of human nature and recognize the inevitability of war.

Realists are state-centered and heavily focus on national security as the most important level of analysis. For realists, states act out of self-interest, often at the expense of other states. They contend that states act this way because the global system is anarchical, where no superior power exists to which an aggrieved national power can appeal to. Given this, realists doubt the power of international law or the ability of the international community to stop conflict. For example, realists point out that United Nations General Assembly resolutions are merely recommendations and UN Security Council resolutions are difficult to produce & require a country willing to enforce them. If we were to give realists a motto, they would follow the Latin phrase Si vis pacem, para bellum (“let them who desire peace prepare for war”). Thus, realists see security in a zero-sum world. Military preparation is key and there is no trust in diplomatic measures.

For realists, the key is that a state must have enough power to establish its own security to remain free from another state's control. This maximization of power is the paramount pursuit. This approximates what Thucydides said close to 2,500 years ago, “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must”. State power can be understood in two different approaches. The first is through absolute gains, which refers to how much power one state can gain for itself. The second is through relative gains, which refers to how much more power one state gains over another state. This concern for relative gains could lead to a security dilemma, or when a state is driven by its security and seeks to acquire more power than its rivals. This leads to insecurity in other countries, which prompts these countries to acquire more power, which in turn drives the original country to seek more power. This spiral can continue unabated.

Realists contend that countries can also try to manage power through balancing. Balancing denotes the act of forming alliances with other states as a strategic measure to counterbalance the influence or dominance of more powerful states. Such actions can develop into a balance-of-power system where a state of equilibrium develops among powerful countries. In this system, no country is permitted to become so powerful that it can threaten the security of another major power. Countries therefore create short-term alliances based on advantage and not on ideology. In other words, creating an alliance because both countries share the same majority religion would be secondary to creating security. In this type of an arrangement, countries are the most important actors. Non-state actors, such as multinational corporations or humanitarian organizations, lack importance.  

Though security is a fundamental driver of international relations for realists, several variants on how to achieve this security have been proposed. In defensive realism, states seek to maximize power to ensure their own security and contend that wars with other states are unlikely to be beneficial. In this variant, war is understood to be a last resort and a breakdown in the international order. Thus, states are quick to respond to any security dilemma by increasing their defensive capabilities and balancing against potential aggression. The other variant is offensive realism, or aggressive realism, where states seek to maximize power to achieve dominance. This is often accomplished by increasing their offensive capabilities. In this variant, war may actually be the preferred option, particularly if used against a predator state that threatens the international order. 

Liberal Internationalism and Security

Liberalism is the antithesis to realism with a focus on cooperation, rather than power competition to resolve conflict. Liberalists also draw upon a plethora of scholars, mostly from the Enlightenment, including Immanuel Kant, Baron de Montesquieu, Hugo Grotius, and John Locke. As a theory, there are quite a few variants and interpretations, including neoliberal institutionalism, economic liberalism (which focuses on market behavior), and democratic peace theory. Despite this variety, liberalism as a worldview has certain characteristics. For example, proponents of liberalism also view security as a key issue in global affairs. Though unlike realists, liberalists incorporate economic concerns, issues of development, and internal domestic situations. For liberalists, non-state actors are just as important as the states themselves. All actors are responsible for security, and it should not just be up to each individual state. Liberalists have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe that war is not inevitable, but the product of a failure to compromise and cooperate.

For liberalists, the promotion of global norms and values is important. States' interests are not limited to survival and security is not zero-sum. Security can be ensured through positive means and can be accomplished through transparency, communication, cooperation, and burden sharing. This reduces the need for armed conflict and instead can lead to expanded trade, which in turn can raise the costs of conflict, making it even less attractive. Cooperation is thus at the heart of liberalism. Liberalists do not suggest that competition will disappear, but that the relative gains from states cooperating are greater than the alternative. Ultimately, if such cooperation could become global, this could then lead to a system that ensures global peace. This is often referred to as collective security, an arrangement where an act of aggression against any individual state is regarded as aggression against all other states. In response, these states collaborate to collectively thwart and repel the aggressor.

Given this, institution building becomes paramount. Referred to as neoliberal institutionalism, this branch of liberalism stresses the importance of international institutions and international law in shaping behavior as a better way to ensure the survival of the state. For liberalists the international system is still anarchical, but international organizations could help create a global framework of cooperation. Newer theorists, such as Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye define this cooperation in their idea of complex interdependence. This concept involves increasing interconnection among transnational actors and highlights the intricate dynamics wherein they develop mutual dependencies, become susceptible to each other's actions, and attuned to each other's needs.

International institutions play a key role in international politics and efforts. Examples include UN actions such as peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement. It also involves the adoption of important international treaties and conventions that guide global behavior such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the incorporation of the Laws of War. Other efforts include the development of international regimes, defined by Keohane (1984) as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision–making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” International regimes on arms proliferation and arms control have become an integral part of the global discourse.

Alternative Theories and Security

Since the 1970s, scholars have worked on developing alternative IR explanation. These alternatives are not quite theories, but more broad perspectives. Given this, scholars have organized such approaches into two overarching categories: social constructivism and critical or radical perspectives. Constructivists focus significant attention on the role of identities in IR. Identities shape a state’s interests and can influence the country’s foreign policy goals, tactics, and strategies. A good example includes Switzerland's identification as a neutral actor in international affairs. Switzerland chooses not to align with another country. This can explain why Switzerland was not invaded in the Second World War and why the country has not joined any military alliances, such as the U.S. led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and economic associations, such as the European Union (EU).

Constructivists emphasize the relational aspects of identities, which are understood as the way one state views another state. This is shaped in important ways by the interactions that they have had and can create perceptions of similarities and differences between states. Thus, threats are socially constructed. For example, nationalism has led to the creation of conflicting identities and the right to self-determination has led to war. Constructivists challenge nearly all realist assumptions, particularly in that states must shape the international system. And so, constructivists would contend that anarchy is not the default understanding of international affairs and that there is no zero-sum world. Security then is how a state defines the system they live in. Thus, securitization is less about actual threats, but in naming someone or something, such as communism or terrorism, as a threat. How a state defines that threat is ultimately what could lead to conflict. Constructivists argue that the focus should be on tangible threats, such as those posed by poverty and disenfranchisement.

Critical or radical approaches to global security are not as prominent, however they are important as they highlight the potential sources of conflict. There are several categories, each focusing on a particular aspect of human activity. For example, in Marxism, named after the scholar Karl Marx, conflict originates in economics, particularly the evolution of capitalism. Marxists contend that the industrialization of a society leads to two main economic classes: a bourgeoisie, a group of people who owns the means of production, and a proletariat that provides the labor. This labor is exploited by the bourgeoisie and over time structures are built to keep this manipulation in place. For Marx, these structures mask inherent contradictions within capitalism, and growing levels of inequality between the two classes will inevitably lead to struggle.

While this source of conflict originates domestically, it can have global dimensions. For Vladimir Lenin, imperialism is a direct result of capitalism. Marx’s theory of surplus value of labor contends that workers do not actually earn what their labor is worth. As production costs are fixed, over time, production owners suppress wages to increase profit as this is the one cost that is variable. This then leads to underconsumption at home and an oversupply of products. Thus, countries seek new outlets for the products through colonization, where colonists are required to buy them. Other theorists focus on the consequences of imperialism and colonialism after independence. Former colonial countries find themselves still dependent on their imperial rulers, which still dominate the economic relationships between the two, even decades after independence. Referred to as dependency theory, this is used to explain why certain states, particularly postcolonial countries, stay underdeveloped and in a state of weakened security.

The other major category involves feminist critiques which focuses on conflict that originates in social divisions such as gender. Feminists argue for women’s empowerment as they view women as not having equal rights and opportunities. As men created the cultural and legal rules for a society, these patriarchal systems produced policies that discriminate against women. Globally, feminists point to several relevant examples. First is the reduced role that women have in foreign policy-making. Second is the masculinization of conflict, where war and violence are glorified and treated as an acceptable approach. Finally, there is a high rate of violence against women, especially during conflict, where as a group they are often targeted by belligerent forces. Overall, women are negatively impacted by many global trends, such as human trafficking and the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Women are more likely to be victims of the global sex slave trade and lack protection from the AIDS pandemic. By focusing on these issues, and giving women a louder voice, security can be strengthened.