Summary of *SOME* of the reading materials for the final exam (2023) for Global Security. INCLUDES
notes from (Total: 23 pages):
● Paul D. Williams and Matt McDonald’s textbook (3rd edition, 2018) “Security Studies: An
Introduction”, introduction and chapters 9, 12,13, 18, 27 and 28.
● Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan’s chapter “27 After the Return to Theory. The Past, Present and
Future of Security Studies” in Collins, Alan, ed. “Contemporary Security Studies”, pp. 393-410.
● Richard N. Rosecrance and Steven E. Miller’s chapter “6 The Thucydides Trap” in “The Next
Great War? The Roots of World War I and the Risk of U.S.-China Conflict”.
● Benjamin Harris’ journal article “Coercive Diplomacy and the Iranian Nuclear Crisis”.
● Karen von Hippel book (1999) “Democracy by Force: US Military Intervention in the Post-Cold
War World”, chapter 1.
● David Lake’s journal article (2010) “Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist
Explanations of the Iraq War”.
Global Security Notes on *SOME* Readings
Table of Contents
“Security Studies: An Introduction” 2
An Introduction to Security Studies 2
PART 2: KEY CONCEPTS 4
Chapter 9: Uncertainty 4
Chapter 12: War 6
Chapter 13: Coercion 9
Chapter 18: Alliances 10
Chapter 27: Counterterrorism 12
Chapter 28: Counterinsurgency 14
“Contemporary Security Studies” 17
27 After the Return to Theory: The Past, Present and Future of Security Studies 17
“The Next Great War? The Roots of World War I and the Risk of U.S.-China Conflict” 19
6 The Thucydides Trap 19
“Coercive Diplomacy and the Iranian Nuclear Crisis” 20
“Democracy by Force: US Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World” 21
1. Introduction: Dangerous Hubris 21
“Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War” 22
, 2
“Security Studies: An Introduction”
An Introduction to Security Studies
Security: Powerful (contested) political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition
for government attention.
WHAT IS SECURITY STUDIES?
Interplay of 5 forces central to understanding how the field has evolved:
1. Great-power politics = material power.
2. Technology = knowledge.
3. Key events = history.
4. Internal dynamics of academic debates = prevailing social construction.
5. Institutionalisation = wealth & organisational dynamics.
Security studies appeared during the Cold War.
➔ Dominant approach = advocating political realism, preoccupied with the 4 Ss:
1. States = most important agents & referents of security in international politics.
2. Strategy = core intellectual/practical concerns revolved around devising the best
means of employing the threat & use of military force.
3. Science = authentic, objective knowledge, adopting methods that follow the natural,
harder sciences to base specific policies.
4. Status quo = security policies helped prevent radical/revolutionary change to
international society while maintaining the position of own states within it.
➔ Barry Buzan’s (1983) People, States, and Fear alternative approach argued that the security
of human collectivities (NOT just states) was affected by factors in 5 major sectors:
1. Military security = interplay of states’ armed offensive & defensive capabilities +
states’ perceptions of each other’s intentions (military security → subset of security
studies as strategic studies).
2. Political security = organisational stability of states, systems of government &
ideologies that give them their legitimacy.
3. Economic security = access to the resources, finance & markets necessary to sustain
acceptable levels of welfare & state power.
4. Societal security = centred on the sustainability/evolution of traditional language,
culture, identities & customs.
5. Environmental security = maintenance of local & planetary biosphere as the
essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend.
Problems with thinking of security studies as a subfield of IR:
● Interstate relations are just 1 aspect of the security dynamics that characterise
contemporary world politics.
● For intellectual reasons → IR dominated by Anglo-American men linked to political realism.
● Security problems = complex/interdependent, IR CANNOT provide analysis/solutions.
DEFINING A FIELD OF INQUIRY
, 3
1. What is security?
Security → alleviation of threats to cherished values & pursuit of political & social ambitions
➔ Survival = existential condition.
➔ Survival-plus = additional freedom from life-determining threats + ability for life choices.
➔ 2 philosophies of security based on:
1. Accumulation of power: As a commodity (i.e., to be secure, actors must possess
money, weapons, territory etc.). More power = more security.
2. Emancipation: Concern with justice & human rights provision, as a relationship
between different actors. Involves gaining a degree of confidence + cooperating to
achieve security without depriving others of it.
● Can be:
○ Negative (i.e., absence of something threatening) → ‘freedom from’.
○ Positive (i.e. phenomena that make things possible) → ‘freedom to’.
● E.g., while the US thinks North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons causes
insecurity, they do not feel the same way about those arsenals held by India.
● ‘Common Security’ (Olaf Palme): Protagonists must achieve security NOT
against the adversary BUT together with him.
● ‘International Security’ (Palme): Must rest on a commitment to joint survival
> threat of mutual destruction → promoting emancipatory politics.
2. Whose security are we talking about?
Approaches:
1. Historically, security has focused on people. ‘The national interests’ was exemplified
post-WWII → ‘state security’.
2. End of the Cold War focused on ‘human security’.
3. Concept of ‘society’ → to be fully human is to be part of specific social groups.
4. Via a level-of-analysis problem, ranging from:
● Lowest level (individual).
● Various sources of collective identities (bureaucracies, states, civilizations etc.).
● International system.
5. Security policies via an ecological sense (planet Earth) → humans are part of nature &
dependent on ecosystems/environment.
3. What counts as a security issue?
Every thinking individual operates with a unique set of security priorities/threat agendas shaped by
different factors (e.g., sex, gender, age, religious beliefs, etc.).
Perspectives on what should count as a security issue:
1. Security analysts should focus on matters related to armed conflict & the threat/use of
military force.
2. Security should be about alleviating the most serious threats preventing people from
pursuing their cherished values → lack of effective systems of health care (childbirth deaths,
paediatric respiratory & intestinal infections) = threat of armed conflict.
4. How can security be achieved?
