Widening the Debate on Security

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Baldwin D. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. P. 5–26.

4. Balzacq T. (ed.) (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. New York: Routledge. 258 p.

5. 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.

6. Booth K. (1991). Security and emancipation. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. Iss. 04. P. 313–326

7. 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.

8. Buzan B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post–Cold War era. Boulder, Lynne Rienner. 311 p.

9. Buzan B. (1997). Rethinking security after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 5–28.

10. Buzan B., Hansen L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 384 p.

11. Buzan B., Wæver O. (1997). Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen School replies. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 241–250.

12. Buzan B., Waever O., Wilde J.D. (1998). Security. A new framework for analysis. London, Lynne Reinner. 239 p.

13. Chandler D. (2007). The security-development nexus and the rise of ‘anti-foreign policy’. Journal of International Relations and development. Vol. 10. P. 362–386.

14. Checkel J.T. (1998).The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 324–348.

15. 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.

16. Digeser P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 977–1007.

17. Dillon M. (1995). Security, philosophy and politics . In Global modernities. Ed. by M. Featherstone, S. Lash, R. Robertson. London, Sage Publications. 292 p.

18. 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.

19. Farrell T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review. Vol. 4. Iss. 1. P. 49–72.

20. Fierke K.M. (2015). Critical approaches to international security. Cambridge, Polity press. 240 p.

21. Giovannetti G. (2007). The security–development nexus: How to bridge the gap between foreign/security policies and development policies. Introductory notes. New York.

22. Guzzini S. (2011). Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue. Vol. 42. No. 4–5. P. 329–341.

23. Haftendorn H. (1991).The security puzzle: Theory–building and discipline–building in international security. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 3–17.

24. Handbook of international security and development. (2015). Ed. by Jackson P. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. 475 p.

25. Hansen L. (1997). A case for seduction? Evaluating the poststructuralist conceptualization of security. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 369–397.

26. Hopf T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 171–200.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Krause K. (1998). Critical theory and security studies. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 298–333.

32. 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.

33. Lapid Y., Kratochwil F.V. (eds) (1996). The return of culture and identity in IR theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 255 p.

34. 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.

35. McSweeney B. (1996). Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School. Review of International Studies. Vol. 22. No. l. P. 81–93.

36. Mearsheimer J. (1994/1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 5–49.

37. Mitchell A. (2014). Only human? A worldly approach to security. Security Dialogue. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 5–21.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. Nye J.S. (1974). Collective economic security. International Affairs. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 584–598.

41. 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.

42. Sergunin A.A. (2005). Mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost': novye podkhody i kontsepty [International Security: New approaches and concepts]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 126–137.

43. Shapiro M.J., Alker H.R. (1996). Challenging boundaries: Global flows, territorial identities. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. 493 p.

44. 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.

45. The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. (1996). Ed. by P.J. Katzenstein. New York, Columbia University Press. 562 p.

46. 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.

47. Ullman R.H. (1983). Redefining security. International Security. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 129–153.

48. Wæver O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In On security. Ed. by R. Lischutz. New York, Columbia University Press. 233 p. P. 46–86.

49. Walker R.B.J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 233 p.

50. Walker R.B.J. (1990). Security, sovereignty, and the challenge of world politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 3–27.

51. Walt S.M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 211–239.

52. Wendt A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International Security. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 71–81.

53. 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.

54. Williams P.D. (ed.) (2008). Security studies: An introduction. London: Routledge. 634 p.

55. Wolfers A. (1952). "National security" as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 67. No. 4. P. 481–502.

56. 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.