INTERNATIONAL SECURITY - IRE107 FALL 2018 Security terms and theories dr. Martin Chovančík dr. Petr Suchý dr. Maya Hadar STARTING DISCUSSION ¡Is security survival? ¡Is security absolute or relational? ¡Is state/national security paramount? ¡How do we know we’re (not) secure? Who decides? ¡Who improves or damages security (which actors)? ¡What makes us most insecure? (WMD, or climate, or race, or conflict?) ¡ ¡ ¡ Security survival – prevention/mitigation of threats to values (survival plus – freedom from and to) Security either absolute – commodity or relational (Russia threat or not a threat?) State security, who is the referent object – people in groups? State because not nation, but political unit even from within? Goes both up and down, groups, societies, human race I am not secure – threat and security agendas, fear-mongering No way to establish common priorities (WMD, or climate, or race, or conflict?) UN panel on threats – healthcare? Life expectancy 86 japan – 34 Zimbabwe GLOBAL RISKS ¡World Economic Forum ¡ ¡The Global Risks Report 2018 13th Edition ¡ ¡http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf ¡ SECURITY ¡security is survival plus ¡while survival is easier to define the plus is not ¡depending on the level of analysis (read Singer) survival will consist of: ¡a degree of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity ¡ ¡ ¡the prevention/mitigation of threats to values ¡freedom from (persecution) ¡and freedom to (pursue happiness) ¡ THREAT ¡primary phenomenon endangering values ¡severity corresponds to how core the value is ¡national security threat as an action or sequence of events that (Ullman 1983): ¡1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state; or ¡2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state or to private non-governmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state ¡ ¡ ever broadening list with varying weights of impact ¡ ¡ ¡Cold War ¡dual threat to state security – physical and ideological ¡dual as source – internal and external ¡oriented at military ¡Collective defense ¡ ¡Current ¡societal and environmental threats ¡previous are present, but less important ¡Collective security In collective Security, threat is not known in advance In Collective Defence, threat is known in advance In Collective Security enemy is not known in advance In Collective Defence enemy is known in advance Collective Security is global in nature Collective Defence is regional and continental SECURITY CHALLENGE ¡Is it just a threat? ¡ ¡technically a synonym, but used to underline collective security and increase the standing of remote but shared threats ¡often “soft security”: ¡i.e.: contagions, environmental degradation, migration, antibiotic resistance, drought, ageing populations, and many others growing in importance due to globalization ¡ ¡does not have to name an adversary ¡ ¡ ¡ Image result for security global challenge VULNERABILITY ¡the level AND area-specific weakness/exposure to threats ¡ ¡susceptibility to threat, being exposed, or sensitive to STRESSORS in a particular area and at a particular level ¡follows the logic of security challenges and discourse is guided away from military and national security vulnerabilities, to more societal and environmental definitions ¡ ¡What is a structural vulnerability assessment? ¡from physical exposure: presence and density of the people, habitat, networks, goods and services in risk zones, physical military or civilian infrastructure ¡ ¡to concepts of resilience: societal capacity to retain values and recover from attacks negative influence RISK ¡Is a risk negative or positive? ¡ ¡likelihood of occurrence ¡“Uncertainty arises when the future is unknown but no actual probabilities (objective or subjective) are attached to alternative outcomes. Risk arises when specific numerical probabilities are attached to alternative outcomes”(Llewllyn 1996:744) ¡ ¡probability of a loss coupled with our evaluation of its size and significance ¡What is a risk appetite? ¡Risk management ¡just weigh the risk of climate change against the risk of economic downturn if policies are applied ¡How aggressively? ¡How “risky” is it to stall? ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Broadest equation: RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX Image result for threat risk matrix Image result for threat risk matrix REFERENT ¡referent or referent object ¡entity whose security is to be assured ¡national security – state ¡human security – individual ¡ ¡ ¡broadening category – regions, communities, minorities, institutions, etc. ¡all require actorness: i.e. the ability to take decisions as a social actor ¡ ¡ Image result for security referent STRUCTURE ¡the context which allows for and limits the actions of actors ¡our context is international ¡ ¡the structure of the system is perceived differently, depending on paradigm: ¡realism, neorealism, liberalism, neoliberalism, Marxism, constructivism ¡ ¡the departing assumption dictates that since global governance is lacking: the international system is subject to varying degrees of anarchy ¡Unipolarity ¡Bipolarity ¡Multipolarity ¡Market structure ¡Interdependence ¡Dialectical materialism ¡World-systems core-periphery ¡World society ¡…. THREAT ¡Brauch 2011: 101 ¡Concepts of Security Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks PARADIGMS (KEGLEY – SHANNON 2011:47) ¡ REALISM: Conflict is intrinsic to IR Balance –internal arming, external alliances Zero sum game Bandwagoning – allying oneself with much stronger state despite value difference Offensive realism, defensive realism Liberalism: Conflict as aberration in IR Still anarchy – but mediated by institutions Interdependence: a relation of mutual, typically, asymmetrical dependence that, when disrupted, brings significant costs and constraints to both parties. Constructivism: Not same standing, not IR theory Weak - allows causal explanations and objective knowledge or strong PLANTING YOUR FLAG Regulatory rules – activities don’t depend on them – road traffic Constitutive rules – activities are made of them – chess Discourse – institutionalized use of language / Framing – shared interpretative scheme UNCERTAINTY AND THE SECURITY DILEMMA ¡2 level dilemma ¡not to be confused with security spiral (although often used in its lieu) ¡ ¡1st level dilemma – a dilemma of interpretation intentions, capabilities, and signals of others ¡occurs under the inescapable and unresolvable uncertainty between defensive and offensive acts ¡How can we know our adversary’s steps are aiming to change the status quo rather than safeguarding it? ¡ ¡2nd level dilemma – a dilemma of choosing the appropriate response to not reinforce the 1st level dilemma ¡if 1st dilemma is evaluated incorrectly may send a strong signal to the opposite effect ¡misplaced trust may lead to ruin, while deterring a benign act may result in escalation (security paradox) ¡ ¡ The Security Dilemma DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY ¡Fatalist logic (realism and neorealism) ¡is the idea that security competition can never be escaped in international politics. Human nature and the condition of international anarchy determine that humans will live in an essentially conflictual world. ¡Mitigator logic (liberalism and neoliberalism) ¡is the idea that security competition can be ameliorated or dampened down for a time, but never eliminated. Here, notions of regimes and societies are key, blunting the worst features of anarchy ¡Transcender logic (constructivism) ¡is the idea that human society is self-constitutive, not determined. Humans have agency, as individuals and groups, and so human society can seek to become what it chooses to be, though inherited structural constraints will always be powerful. A global community of peace and trust is in principle possible if in practice it currently looks improbable. ¡Booth and Wheeler 2008:143. THE BROADENING OF SECURITY ¡Current mainstream approach COMBINES and EVOLVES ¡ ¡Constituting broadly out of 2 domains which overlap ¡ EVOLUTION OF SECURITY – THROUGH THE EYES OF BARRY BUZAN Image result for People, States, and Fear buzan Image result for barry buzan books Image result for barry buzan people states 1983 Image result for barry buzan books 1983 1991 1997 2009 no “essence”, no universal feature of security a self-referential practice MAINSTREAM SECURITY ¡Currently defined in 5 sectors: ¡Military ¡state-centric; involve use of force; existential ¡Political ¡regime orientated, ideological in nature ¡Economic ¡acceptable level of stability ¡Societal ¡coping with differences in identity and culture ¡Environmental ¡climate and ecology orientated issues ¡ ¡at 3 different levels: individuals, states, and international system http://thepolicytensor.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/rsas.png Regional security complexes as ecosystems of security SECURITY COMPLEXES “...set of units whose major processes of securitization, desecuritization, or both, are so interlinked that their security problems cannot be reasonably analyzed apart from one another SECURITIZATION IN IR ¡Making something more secure? ¡ ¡rather making something that was not a threat before (although existed) into a threat in the political arena ¡by introducing an issue in the security discourse it becomes a threat ¡step up from politicization – the act of making something a political issue ¡once an issue is securitized it is subject to special treatment and security responses may apply ¡constant process broadening our definition of security Image result for national security cartoon SECURITIZATION ¡Securitization act: ¡(1) claims that a referent object is existentially threatened ¡(2) demands the right to take extraordinary countermeasures to deal with that the threat ¡(3) convinces an audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter the threat is justified ¡ ¡Ole Weaver and Barry Buzan ¡followed by many iterations and revisions