STST1001 Chapter Notes - Chapter week 1-4: John Ikenberry, Stephen Walt, Power Transition Theory
STST1001 NOTES ON READINGS
WEEK 1
Miller, Benjamin. ‘The Concept of Security: Should it be
Redefined?’ The Journal of Strategic Studies 24:2 (2001): 13-41.
In the aftermath of the Cold War there have been many calls for adopting
a new conception of security and for extending the traditional concept
Because states are sovereign, there is no higher overall authority in the
international system. As a result, the system is one of self- help, namely,
the states must take care of their own national security."
Thus, one is secure under two conditions. First, when no one poses a threat to
previously acquired value. Second, if such threats exist, one will be secure if one
has the capability to defend oneself against the sources of danger at reasonable
costs.
The traditional conception of national security
1. The origins of threat: threats to national security are posed by other
states, notably revisionist states which are dissatisfied with the status
quo.
a. by proximate neighbors, which have both the opportunity and the
motivation due to substantive sources of conflict to pose a threat
b. or by the great powers which have both global power- projection
capabilities and world-wide interests
2. The nature of threats
a. According to the traditional conception involves mostly offensive
military capabilities possessed or acquired by opponents.
b. But since in many cases it is almost impossible to make a clear-cut
distinction between offensive and defensive capabilities
3. The response
4. Who is responsible for providing security?
a. security in a self-help system/national security
5. Core values for the defense of which the state is ready to go to war in the
traditional conception are related to the nation-state
a. preserving its sovereignty and national independence,
b. maintaining its territorial integrity and the sanctity of its
boundaries and
c. not tolerating coercive interference in its domestic affairs.
Limitations and disadvantages of the expanded conception of security
1. Empirical overstatement
2. Loss of conceptual clarity
a. If one 'stretches' a concept to include everything, it loses its
analytic utility and explanatory value
3. Inability to evaluate trade offs
4. Confusion between empirical analysis and normative advocacy
a. There is a difference between arguing on an empirical basis that
elites in the Third World care largely about regime security and
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
that they often threaten the well-being of their citizen^,^ and the
liberal-idealist advocacy of putting individual human rights at the
center of the international security concept on normative grounds.
A state is secure under these 2 conditions
1. If threats of violence against the core values of the state are present, the
state can be secure to the extent that it possesses the capabilities to
defend its key values at reasonable costs.
2. In the absence of threats of violence against the state's major values.
Hegemony = World 4 is a hegemonic world. The hegemon does not face any
serious great power rival and thus it does not have to cope with major strategic
threats to its core values. At the same time, the hegemon possesses a large
repertoire of military means at its disposal. As a result, threats that are
considered minor during an era of great power rivalry move to the top of the
security agenda in a hegemonic period. This upgrading includes issues such as
transnational organized crime, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.
Conclusion: The realists overlook the nonmilitary factors affecting security and
especially the connection between peace and security. The expanders, for their
part, ignore the remaining importance of armed conflict under international
anarchy, and also undermine the coherence of the concept of security by
stretching it almost endlessly.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International
Security Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009,
8--‐20.
Four questions that structure ISS
1. Whether to privilege the state as the referent object
2. Whether include internal as well as external threats
3. Whether to expand security beyond the military sector and the use of
force
4. Whether to see security as inextricably tied to a dynamic of dangers,
threats and urgency
WEEK 2
Snyder, Jack. ‘One World, Rival Theories.’ Foreign Policy 145
(2004): 52-62.
Three dominate theories that shape public discourse and policy analysis:
Realism
Shifting distribution of power among states
Instills a pragmatic appreciation of the role of power but also warns that
states will suffer if they overreach
At realism’s core is the belief that international affairs is a struggle for
power among self-interested states
A ruthless pragmatism about power can actually yield a more peaceful
world
Idealism (constructivism)
Illuminates the changing norms of sovereignty, human rights, and
international justice, as well as, the increased potency of religious ideas in
politics
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
