Current Security Issues in International Relations

By the 1980s, the concept of “Common Security” started appearing in the literature. The concept was first employed in the 1982 Palme Commission. “Common Security” refers to the idea that security can be assured through less conflictual methods. Under common security, the state remains as the referent object for security. The focus in such an approach is on threats (military threats in particular) coming from other states. The Palme Commission Report warns that conventional approaches that seek security may lead to intense competition and tense political relations, causing “reduced security for everyone”. The report also expresses that the world’s existence and security are “interconnected”, and as such that security can only be maintained via “common acts” (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, 1982:ix).

The traditional state-centric approach has been criticised for overlooking topics related to personal security, such as welfare or justice, societal security (e.g. identity and culture), and ultimately survival. According to Ullman, defining national security within a solely military context also gives a wrong impression. Ullman calls for the need to redefine security in a different context (Ullman, 1983: 129–153). The rise of contemporary approaches to the concept of security has also given voice to those defending that individual and societal security are more crucial than state security. These approaches include “collective security”, “stable peace” and Third World security (Bilgin, 2003: 203).

Critical approaches to security go so far as to argue that contemporary security threats target citizens and are triggered by states (Miller, 2001: 19). According to this viewpoint, the security of people cannot be equated to the security of the state. In other words, the state’s security does not automatically mean the security of citizens. (see: Møller, 2003: 277-288). According to humanitarian security approaches, threats can come from states or non-state actors as well as structural elements in power relations.

While conventional approaches prioritise power and order, critical security priorities emancipation. According to Booth, humanity is placed at the centre of security and emancipation takes precedence. Emancipation can be defined as freedom from “all those physical and human constraints which stop them from carrying out what they would freely choose to do” (Booth, 1991: 319). Constraints that people find themselves in range from human rights violations, deprivation (from literacy, healthcare services, etc.), poverty, environmental issues and the degradation of the ecological balance, and conflicts on state and sub-state levels (Bilgin, 2005: 44).

Galtung’s “positive peace” term, which focuses on peace, security and violence (Galtung, 1964: 2–3), as well as Boulding’s “stable peace” approach (1978) have acted as pioneers to the expansion of security as a concept. According to Galtung, “security” has a meaning only when it is based on a positive and stable structure of peace. In other words, security means more than “negative peace” –understood as the lack of war in the form of a “direct violence”. Security must aim to remove or reduce “structural violence” which refers to the relative deprivation of large parts of the world’s population (Bilgin, 2003: 204–205).

Buzan proposes a “broader framework of security”, arguing that security as it is known is too narrowly founded (Buzan, 1991b; 14; 20; Wæver et. all, 1993). Buzan also proposes five different sectors for security (Political, Military, Economic, Societal, and Environmental), elaborating on how these sectors affect the periphery according to changes in the centre. According to Buzan, “five sectors do not operate in isolation from each other. Each defines a focal point within the security problematique, and a way of ordering priorities, but all are woven together in a strong web of linkage” (Buzan, 1991a:433). Military security here refers to the armed offensive and defensive capabilities of states as well as their intentions. Political security relates to a state’s power systems as well as ideologies that legitimise it. Economic security deals with problems of reaching the markets and resources. Societal security concerns the protection, development and continuation of religious, linguistic and cultural identities. Environmental security deals with the development of defence systems in order to preserve life on this planet (Buzan, 1991a: 435–443).

Economic threats are hard to define due to the nature of the economy itself. Actors in a market economy exist in an environment of risk, competition and uncertainty. This nature of the economy makes economic security hard to evaluate. Discussions arise during an economic crisis on what assets “should be saved” or “shouldn’t be saved” by the government. There exists also a link between military and economic security. Military security needs economic security, since military capacity ultimately exists on a budget. Furthermore, when comparing developed and developing countries, it becomes clear that economic security is correlated to creating security in other sectors (Buzan, 1991b:124).

Following the end of the Cold War, non-military threats have increased in addition to conventional military threats. Less threats come from conventional forms, e.g. military competition or armament, and more from unconventional sources such as the disintegration of a state authority, poverty, famine, ethnic conflict, civil war, natural and environmental degradation, terrorism, organised crime and human trafficking. Both international security and state security are impacted by conventional and unconventional threats. During the Cold War, security was assessed through the lens of a country attacking another. “Unconventional” threats existed during this period as well, but were not seen as substantive threats. In the post-Cold War period, non-military threats have become increasingly important in security agenda and have gained importance in the literature concerned with security issues.

Societal security deals with existing identities within a society and the harmony and balance between them (or lack thereof). Almost every state and society are home to multiple identities and cultures. How these differences are experienced then becomes a matter of significance. It must be noted that societal security is closely connected to political, economic and military security. Almost every contemporary conflict incorporates a societal aspect. Thus, societal security must be considered when examining international or regional security. It should also be noted that since societal security deals with identities and cultures, its treatment can lead to the creation of discriminatory or exclusionary policies.

As Buzan puts it, “the ‘national’ security problem turns out to be a systemic security problem in which individuals, states and the system all play a part, and in which economic, societal and environmental factors are as important as political and military ones” (Buzan, 1991b:368).

Another term often used in the post-Cold War period is “Collective Security”. The scope of the term reflects the idea that the United Nations (or other international organisations) exist not only to protect peace between states, but also to protect human rights if need be. In this new period, the international system presents itself as a global entity where “international politics” and “internal politics on a global scale” are brought together, instead of relying entirely on sovereign nations whose boundaries cannot be crossed. This leads to another question: Whose security?