intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2017.15.1.48.6intertrends-725Research ArticleАНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИЗМЫANALYTICAL PRISMSРасширение проблематики исследований безопасностиWidening the Debate on SecurityЮдинНиколайYudinNikolay

Юдин Николай Вадимович - кандидат исторических наук, доцент Кафедры международных организаций и мировых политических процессов МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова

Москва

Dr Nikolay Yudin - Associate Professor, Department of International Organizations and World Political Processes, Lomonosov Moscow State University

Moscow, 119991

nicolas.yudin@gmail.comМГУ им. М.В. ЛомоносоваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussian Federation2017050820251516078Copyright © Юдин Н., 20252025Юдин Н.Yudin N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/725

Вопросы безопасности занимают центральное место в изучении международных отношений. Вместе с тем в определении самого понятия «безопасность» остаются пробелы. Это обстоятельство не только препятствует осмыслению особенностей становления и эволюции научных школ, их текущего состояния и перспектив дальнейших исследований, но и затрудняет разработку и реализацию на практике стратегий, призванных ответить на новые вызовы и угрозы индивидам, обществам, государствам и международному сообществу в целом. Задать основу для системного изучения понятия «безопасность» может обращение к анализу базовых онтологических и эпистемологических установок, на которых строятся наиболее распространенные подходы к его определению. С этой целью в статье рассматривается полемика, развернувшаяся в международно-политической науке в 1990-х годах относительно возможности, допустимости и необходимости качественного расширения исследовательского поля безопасности в постбиполярный период.

Анализ этой дискуссии позволяет выделить два принципиально различных способа концептуализации понятия «безопасность»: традиционный и постмодернистский. Расхождения между ними проявляются в таких фундаментальных вопросах, как оценка субстантивного статуса субъекта и объекта безопасности; возможность обретения объективного знания о процессах и явлениях в сфере безопасности; цель исследований безопасности. Соответственно, в обсуждении вопроса о расширении исследовательского поля безопасности можно условно выделить два уровня: первый – составляют исследования, написанные в рамках рационалистических подходов; появление второго уровня увязывается с проникновением в исследования безопасности постмодернистских, дискурсивных подходов, которые предложили альтернативный взгляд на ключевые элементы теории международных отношений, ее основные понятия и принципы.

Подобное структурирование подходов к изучению проблематики безопасности может стать отправной точкой при осмыслении современных концепций безопасности, оценке и уточнении их содержания и значения.

The consept of security plays a pivotal role both in international relations theory and practice. However, despite the fact that different aspects of security problematique have been thoroughly examined in a number of Russian and foreign scholarly works, the very concept itself remains surprisingly understudied. The latter fact not only hinders all attempts to assess the evolution of security studies, their current state and prospects, but also makes it difficult to formulate expedient political strategies and security programmes to counter new challenges and threats. To find the basis for a comprehensive study of the concept of security it may be appropriate to revisit the basic ontological and epistemological foundations of the most influential approaches and theories in the security studies. For this purpose the present paper examines intensive debates on the possibility, acceptability and necessity of widening the concept of security in the post-bipolar world that swept in the Western security studies in the 1990s.

The author comes to the conclusion that these debates are framed by two fundamentally different ways of conceptualizing security – traditional rationalist and postmodernist – with entirely divergent, practically mutually exclusive, assessments of the substantive status of the subject and the object of security, of the possibility acquiring of objective knowledge of international phenomena, and of the aims of security studies in general. Accordingly, the “widening debate” can be outlined on two levels. The first level of the debate encompasses works written within the framework of traditional rationalist approaches ((neo)realism, (neo) liberalism, (neo)Marxism, conventional constructivism). The second level of the debates emerged with the introduction of postmodernist, discursive methods and practices, which provided an alternative understanding of the very basic elements of the international relations theory, its concepts and principles. This level is represented by postmodernist, poststructuralist writings on security, with the theory of securitization serving as probably the prime example of postmodernist research programme.

This version of mapping of different approaches within the security studies may serve as a starting point for further analysis of contemporary concepts of security, clarifying their content and meaning.

теория международных отношенийисследования безопасностинеореализмлиберализмпостмодернизмконструктивизмсекьюритизацияКопенгагенская школахолодная войнаinternational relations theorysecurity studiesneorealismliberalismpostmodernismconstructivismsecuritizationCopenhagen SchoolCold WarИсследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда (проект № 15-18-30066).The research was carried out at the expense of a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 15-18-30066).ReferencesБартенев В.И. Связка «безопасность–развитие» в современных западных исследованиях: от деконструкции к концептуализации // Международные процессы. 2015. Т. 13. № 3. С. 78–97.Ashley R.K. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium – Journal of International Studies. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 227–262.Конышев В.Н. Постпозитивизм о личности как новом референте безопасности: критический анализ // Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. 2014. Т. 10. № 1. С. 178–193.Ashley R.K. (1987). The geopolitics of geopolitical space: Toward a critical social theory of international politics. Alternatives: Social Transformation and Humane Governance. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 403–434.Конышев В.Н., Сергунин А.А. Теория международных отношений: канун новых “великих дебатов”? // Полис. Политические исследования. 2013. № 2. С. 66–78.Baldwin D. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. P. 5–26.Копылов А.В. О генезисе и сущности понятия «национальная безопасность» // Вестник Дип ломатической академии МИД России. Россия и мир. 2015. № 2(4). С. 31–43.Balzacq T. (ed.) (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. New York: Routledge. 258 p.Кулькова О.С. Особенности политического дискурса по проблемам взаимозависимости безопасности и развития в Европейском союзе // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 25: Международные отношения и мировая политика. 2016. Т.8. № 1. С. 72–106.Bartenev V.I. (2015). Svyazka «bezopasnost'-razvitie» v sovremennykh zapadnykh issledovaniyakh: ot dekonstruktsii k kontseptualizatsii [Security-development nexus in Western bibliography: From deconstruction to contextualization]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 78–97.Морозов В.Е. Безопасность как форма политического: о секьюритизации и политизации // Полис. Политические исследования. 2011. № 3. С. 24–35.Booth K. (1991). Security and emancipation. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. Iss. 04. P. 313–326Рыхтик М.И. Эволюция понятия “безопасность”: от “жестких угроз” до “мягких вызовов”. Современные проблемы мировой политики: Безопасность, конфликты и их анализ. Под ред. М.М. Лебедевой. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2002. 197 с.Browning C.S., McDonald M. (2011). The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International relations. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 235–255.Сергунин А.А. Международная безопасность: новые подходы и концепты // Полис. Политические исследования. 2005. № 6. С. 126–137.Buzan B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post–Cold War era. Boulder, Lynne Rienner. 311 p.Юдин Н.В. Связка «безопасность – развитие»: проблемы теоретического осмысления // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 25: Международные отношения и мировая политика. 2016. Т. 8. № 1. С. 39–71.Buzan B. (1997). Rethinking security after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 5–28.Ashley R.K. Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique // Millennium – Journal of International Studies. 1988. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 227–262.Buzan B., Hansen L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 384 p.Ashley R.K. The geopolitics of geopolitical space: Toward a critical social theory of international politics // Alternatives: Social Transformation and Humane Governance. 1987. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 403–434.Buzan B., Wæver O. (1997). Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen School replies. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 241–250.Baldwin D. The concept of security // Review of International Studies. 1997. Vol. 23. P. 5–26.Buzan B., Waever O., Wilde J.D. (1998). Security. A new framework for analysis. London, Lynne Reinner. 239 p.Booth K. Security and emancipation // Review of International Studies. 1991. Vol. 17. Iss. 04. P. 313–326Chandler D. (2007). The security-development nexus and the rise of ‘anti-foreign policy’. Journal of International Relations and development. Vol. 10. P. 362–386.Browning C.S., McDonald M. The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security // European Journal of International relations. 2011. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 235–255.Checkel J.T. (1998).The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 324–348.Buzan B. People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post–Cold War era. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1991. 311 p.Der Derian J. (1993). The value of security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard. In The political subject of violence. Ed. by Campbell D., Dillon M. Manchester, Manchester University Press. 185 p. P. 94–113.Buzan B. Rethinking security after the Cold War // Cooperation and Conflict. 1997. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 5–28.Digeser P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 977–1007.Buzan B., Hansen L. The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 384 p.Dillon M. (1995). Security, philosophy and politics . In Global modernities. Ed. by M. Featherstone, S. Lash, R. Robertson. London, Sage Publications. 292 p.Buzan B., Wæver O. Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen School replies // Review of International Studies. 1997. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 241–250.Duffield M. (2010). The liberal way of development and the development–security impasse: Exploring the global life – chance divide. Security Dialogue. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 53–76.Buzan B., Waever O., Wilde J.D. Security. A new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Reinner, 1998. 239 p.Farrell T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review. Vol. 4. Iss. 1. P. 49–72.Chandler D. The security–development nexus and the rise of ‘anti–foreign policy’ // Journal of International Relations and development. 2007. Vol. 10. P. 362–386.Fierke K.M. (2015). Critical approaches to international security. Cambridge, Polity press. 240 p.Checkel J.T. The constructivist turn in international relations theory // World Politics. 1998. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 324–348.Giovannetti G. (2007). The security–development nexus: How to bridge the gap between foreign/security policies and development policies. Introductory notes. New York.Der Derian J. The value of security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard / The political subject of violence // Ed. by Campbell D., Dillon M. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. 185 p. P. 94–113.Guzzini S. (2011). Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue. Vol. 42. No. 4–5. P. 329–341.Digeser P. The fourth face of power // The Journal of Politics. 1992. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 977–1007.Haftendorn H. (1991).The security puzzle: Theory–building and discipline–building in international security. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 3–17.Dillon M. Security, philosophy and politics / Global modernities // Ed. by M.Featherstone, S.Lash, R.Robertson. London: Sage Publications, 1995. 292 p.Handbook of international security and development. (2015). Ed. by Jackson P. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. 475 p.Duffield M. The liberal way of development and the development–security impasse: Exploring the global life – chance divide // Security Dialogue. 2010. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 53–76.Hansen L. (1997). A case for seduction? Evaluating the poststructuralist conceptualization of security. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 369–397.Farrell T. Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program // International Studies Review. 2002. Vol. 4. Iss. 1. P. 49–72.Hopf T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 171–200.Fierke K.M. Critical approaches to international security. Cambridge: Polity press, 2015. 240 p.Huysmans J. (1998). Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier. European Journal of International Relation. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 226–255.Giovannetti G. The security–development nexus: How to bridge the gap between foreign/security policies and development policies. Introductory notes. New York, 2007.Konyshev V.N. (2014). Postpozitivizm o lichnosti kak novom referente bezopasnosti: kriticheskii analiz [Post-positivism about human dimension as a new security referent object: Critical analysis]. Politicheskaya ekspertiza: POLITEKS. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 178–193.Guzzini S. Securitization as a causal mechanism // Security Dialogue. 2011. Vol. 42. No. 4–5. P. 329– 341.Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. (2013). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: kanun novykh “velikikh debatov”? [International relations theory: On the threshold of new «Great Debates»?]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 2. P. 66–78.Haftendorn H. The security puzzle: Theory–building and discipline–building in international security // International Studies Quarterly. 1991. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 3–17.Kopylov A.V. (2015).O genezise i sushchnosti ponyatiya «natsional'naya bezopasnost'» [On the genesis and the essence of the “national security” notion]. Vestnik Diplomaticheskoi akademii MID Rossii. Rossiya i mir. No. 2. P. 31–43.Handbook of international security and development // Ed. by Jackson P. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. 475 p.Krause K. (1998). Critical theory and security studies. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 298–333.Hansen L. A case for seduction? Evaluating the poststructuralist conceptualization of security // Cooperation and Conflict. 1997. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 369–397.Kul'kova O.S. (2016). Osobennosti politicheskogo diskursa po problemam vzaimozavisimosti bezopasnosti i razvitiya v Evropeiskom soyuze [Political Discourse on Security-Development Nexus in the European Union]. Moscow University Journal of World Politics. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 72–106.Hopf T. The promise of constructivism in international relations theory // International Security. 1998. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 171–200.Lapid Y., Kratochwil F.V. (eds) (1996). The return of culture and identity in IR theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 255 p.Huysmans J. Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier // European Journal of International Relation. 1998. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 226–255.McSweeney B. (1998). Durkheim and the Copenhagen School: A response to Buzan and Wæver. Review of International Studies. Vol. 24. No. l. P. 137–140.Krause K. Critical theory and security studies // Cooperation and Conflict. 1998. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 298–333.McSweeney B. (1996). Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School. Review of International Studies. Vol. 22. No. l. P. 81–93.McSweeney B. Durkheim and the Copenhagen School: A response to Buzan and Wæver // Review of International Studies. 1998. Vol. 24. No. l. P. 137–140.Mearsheimer J. (1994/1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 5–49.McSweeney B. Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School // Review of International Studies. 1996. Vol. 22. No. l. P. 81–93.Mitchell A. (2014). Only human? A worldly approach to security. Security Dialogue. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 5–21.Mearsheimer J. The false promise of international institutions // International Security. 1994/1995. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 5–49.Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.Mitchell A. Only human? A worldly approach to security // Security Dialogue. 2014. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 5–21.Morozov V.E. (2011). Bezopasnost' kak forma politicheskogo: o sek'yuritizatsii i politizatsii [Security as a form of political issues: On securitization and politicization]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 3. P. 24–35.Mitzen J. Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma // European Journal of International Relations. 2006. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.Nye J.S. (1974). Collective economic security. International Affairs. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 584–598.Nye J.S. Collective economic security // International Affairs. 1974. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 584–598.Rykhtik M.I. (2002). Evolyutsiya ponyatiya “bezopasnost'”: ot “zhestkikh ugroz” do “myagkikh vyzovov” [Evolution of the concept of ‘security’: From “hard threats” to “soft challenges”]. In Sovremennye problemy mirovoi politiki: Bezopasnost', konflikty i ikh analiz [Contemporary issues of world politics: Security, conflicts and their analysis]. Ed. by M.M. Lebedeva. Мoscow, Aspect Press, 197 p.Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve // Ed. by T. Balzacq. New York: Routledge, 2011. 258 p.Sergunin A.A. (2005). Mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost': novye podkhody i kontsepty [International Security: New approaches and concepts]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 126–137.Security studies: An introduction // Ed. by P.D. Williams. London: Routledge, 2008. 634 p.Shapiro M.J., Alker H.R. (1996). Challenging boundaries: Global flows, territorial identities. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. 493 p.Shapiro M.J., Alker H.R. Challenging boundaries: Global flows, territorial identities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 493 p.Smith S. (1999). The increasing insecurity of security studies: Conceptualizing security in the last twenty years. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 72–101.Smith S. The increasing insecurity of security studies: Conceptualizing security in the last twenty years // Contemporary Security Policy. 1999. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 72–101.The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. (1996). Ed. by P.J. Katzenstein. New York, Columbia University Press. 562 p.The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics // Ed. by P.J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. 562 p.Tschirgi N., Lund M.S., Manchini F. (2010). The security-development nexus. In Security and development: Searching for critical connections. Ed. by Tschirgi N., Lund M.S., Manchini F. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers. 449 p. P. 1–16.The return of culture and identity in IR theory // Ed. by Lapid Y., Kratochwil F.V. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996. 255 p.Ullman R.H. (1983). Redefining security. International Security. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 129–153.Tschirgi N., Lund M.S., Manchini F. The security–development nexus / Security and development: Searching for critical connections // Ed. by Tschirgi N., Lund M.S., Manchini F. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. 449 p. P. 1–16.Wæver O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In On security. Ed. by R. Lischutz. New York, Columbia University Press. 233 p. P. 46–86.Ullman R.H. Redefining security // International Security. 1983. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 129–153.Walker R.B.J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 233 p.Wæver O. Securitization and desecuritization / On security // ed. by R. Lischutz. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. 233 p. P. 46–86.Walker R.B.J. (1990). Security, sovereignty, and the challenge of world politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 3–27.Walker R.B.J. Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 233 p.Walt S.M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 211–239.Walker R.B.J. Security, sovereignty, and the challenge of world politics // Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 1990. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 3–27.Wendt A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International Security. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 71–81.Walt S.M. The renaissance of security studies // International Studies Quarterly. 1991. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 211–239.Wendt A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 391–425.Wendt A. Constructing international politics // International Security. 1995. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 71–81.Williams P.D. (ed.) (2008). Security studies: An introduction. London: Routledge. 634 p.Wendt A. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics // International Organization. 1992. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 391–425.Wolfers A. (1952). "National security" as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 67. No. 4. P. 481–502.Wolfers A. "National security" as an ambiguous symbol // Political Science Quarterly. 1952. Vol. 67. No. 4. P. 481–502.Yudin N.V. (2016). Svyazka «bezopasnost' — razvitie»: problemy teoreticheskogo osmysleniya [Securitydevelopment nexus: Dilemmas of conceptualization]. Moscow University Journal of World Politics. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 39–71.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.