Application 2 – Annotated Bibliography for Dr Dan 15

157

THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY: A SHORT THEORETICAL APPROACH

A N A - M A R I A B O L B O R I C I 1

Abstract The end of the Cold War has generated a series of changes regarding the national / international environmental of security, which gradually developed an pluralistic terminological approach. This paper try to offer a short theoretical approach underlying the gradually tendencies in changes the definitions of security concept and, subsequently, the major riscs at the world level.Today, the security concept it redefines almost by itself, giving for the first time importance of some factors such as: economic, social, cultural, political, environment and others. The paper describe, also, the military and non-military dimensions of concept defines security as far as theoreticians consider normal to redefines the concept of threats and vulnerabilities, underlining that the security of human communities is affected by various factors in major sectors and also in the the private lives of people. The concrete threats to national security and / or international bodies we face today are: the increasing the number of immigrants and refugees, ethnic clashes, the growing importance of cultural and religious affiliation in international relations, the environmental degradation, the integration in different regional structures etc.Security is the freedom to live and work in the absence of any threat and the ability of states and societies to preserve their distinct identity; providing in this century the security of the individuals belonging to the state is a challenge and this impose some reflections about the ways of managing this reality. Keywords: security, security complex, threats, vulnerabilities

Until the outbreak of Second World War the security concept was related with the defense term, the present etymology arising from USA, to which important amendments were added in subsequent years.For the analysts the idea of security before the Cold War period was limited to the pro-natalist policies but at the beginning of the 20th century was considered the best ways to enhance power and national security. Subsequently in the years that have marked the Cold War the security concept has been defined in military terms, being a reflection of the main concerns of the two blocks. After war the dominant doctrine was realism (and correlative neorealism) focusing on the bipolarity of the system and the distinction

1 PhDLecturer, Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Sociology and

Communication, Department of Social Science and Communication. E-mail: [email protected]

ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI

158

between high politics and low politics. Both notions represents dimensions of security, on one hand, high politics are referring to the issue of security seen as one politico-military and, on the other hand, low politics defining some environmental issues, economics, social issues, etc (Dungaciu, 2007, p. 11).

Some analysts emphasize that in the analysis of a complex of security must be considered primarily the economic factors in the new global low politics with an obviously advance to hard politics, in this regard the economic interdependence being seen as a way to connect states at regional and even global level. The end of the Cold War has generated a series of changes regarding the national / international environmental of security, which gradually developed an pluralistic terminological approach, so from that moment the security no longer represent (nor for theoreticians and even for practitioners) a political and military direction of analysis of a state.In the new context, the security concept it redefines almost by itself, giving for the first time importance of some factors such as: economic, social, cultural, political, environment, etc. In the first security studies (belonging almost exclusively to realistic theoretical school), the security was a topic with a military preponderance, directly linked to the national interest defined in terms of power; so, they considered that the security concept coincides with the national security, another term often used (Duna, 2005, p. 3).

At a brief analysis some definitions of the concept of security stresses that these cannot be considered ignoring the historical context in which they were developed, whether security issues aim different aspects like: military, social or otherwise.In the 50s, John Hertz has launched the concept of "security dilemma", advancing his argument based on the premise that "power is a relative matter by its very nature, the gain of a state is being necessarily the another's loss" (Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 72-73).According to Hertz's the security dilemma was "a notion of structure in which attempts to self-help of States to ensure their own security needs tend, regardless of intentions, lead to an increase in the insecurity of others, as each plays his own actions as being defensive, and those of others as potentially threatening"(Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 72-73).

In the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (1968) the national security is explained as "the ability of a nation to protect its internal values against external threats". (Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 7)According to Ian Bellany (1981) "security, in itself, is a relative absence of war"; Laurence Martin (1983) is limited in define the security considering economic dimension considering that "security is ensuring the future well-being" (Sarcinschi, 2005,p.8).

By the Walter Lippmann's view a nation are assured his security when not have to sacrifice their interests and is able to maintain and, if necessary, even by war; thus "a nation is safe so far as it are not in danger of having to sacrifice core value, if it wants to avoid war and maybe, when is provoked to and maintain them acquiring al least the victory in a war" (Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 8).

THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY: A SHORT THEORETICAL APPROACH

159

For Jordan A. and W. Taylor (1981) the national security has a broader meaning than protecting against threats of physical values, implying the protection of economic and political interests whose loss could threaten the fundamental and also the vitality values of the state (Andreescu, 2001, p. 17).Charles Maynes (1989) thinks that national security it is best defined as "the capacity to control internal and external conditions which public opinion of one community it considers necessary to enjoy its own autonomy, prosperity and welfare" (Andreescu, 2001, p. 17).

Barry Buzan (and later the theoreticians of Copenhagen School) will open the prospect of a new debate on security, proving that the definition of Stephen Walt is now outdated, according to which security must be reduced to "threats study, the use and control of the military forces" (Dungaciu, 2007, p. 11).B. Buzan redefines the concept of threats and vulnerabilities, underlining that the security of human communities is affected by various factors in five major sectors: military, political, economic, societal, and environment.(Buzan, 1983, pp. 75-83; see also Stefanachi 2011, pp. 417-718).

As outlined in the definitions described above the military and non-military dimensions of concept defines security as follows: military security (means all offensive and defensive military capabilities of states);the political security (refer to the organizational stability of the state, the ruling system and the ideology which has given legitimacy); the economic and social security (is that provide access to resources, sources of funding and markets, necessary to sustain acceptable levels of wealth and power of the state and its citizens); the societal security (refers to the ability of societies / communities to replicate the traditional patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity and other customs); the environmental security (is highlighted by the measures to maintain local and global biosphere as an essential support for the existence of mankind, for example: access to natural resources, transboundary air pollution, global warming, etc.). According to Barry Buzanthese five sectors do not operate separately from each other, each defines a focal point within the security problem and a way of ordering priorities, “they are heavily bound to each other”in a strong network(Buzan, 1983, p. 136).

According toBuzan security is the freedom to live and work in the absence of any threat and the ability of states and societies to preserve their distinct identity and functional integrity against forces of change, perceived as hostile, the providing of the individuals security belonging to the state.The societal security (with reference to human communities as a whole) represent, in the opinion of B. Buzan, a key factor in the current security equation; the key aspect of society is that set of ideas and practices regarding the identity of individuals as members of a social group;the society refers to identity, the self-perception of the community and individuals who self-identify as members of the community. If societies are the central issue of the new security issues, the issue of identity and migration is underlying the perception of threats and vulnerabilities. According to Barry Buzan,

ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI

160

Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde societal insecurity exists when any communities define a development or a potentiality as a threat to their survival as a community (Rogojanu, 2007, p. 120).

The end of Cold War highlighted new trends as a result of radical transformations to which the international system has been constrained and were reflected, by default, in the need to redefine and reinterpretation the concept of security globally.The obvious fear of the triggering of a nuclear conflict between the two great powers was gradually replaced by a series of concrete threats to national security and / or international bodies such as: ethnic clashes, the need for former communist states to undergo a process of transition, the increasing the number of immigrants and refugees, the growing importance of cultural and religious affiliation in international relations, the environmental degradation, the integration in different regional structures etc.

In the current security studies there is an obvious distinction between traditionalist approach of security concept, mainly focused on the state and military dimension and the new approach which aims to expand the security agenda by analyzing the military and non-military issues. We identified, also, a predilection towards widening of this field regarding the definition of security, analysts such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde (representatives of the School of thinking from Copenhagen) resumed the security analysis in the military, societal, economic, political and environmental terms, and, also, proposing as analytical method an incorporation of traditional principles and at the same time the elimination of the artificial borders between security and economics.

The American analyst Peter Tarnoff considers that, currently, the economic field occupies a prominent position in the policy of national security, the role of economics being more important than the military sector (Tarnoff, 2009),According to the representatives of the Copenhagen School of thinking dimensions which are important in the security analysis operate at different levels, for example: states, groups of individuals (nations), regions or global contexts; the security concept can be defined according to the perceived threat, the source of threat can be identified either in the aggressive states or in the negative social tendencies or in the cultural diversity (this threats can manifest in a variety of political contexts or spheres of life: political, economic, military, cultural, demographic, environmental, etc.).

Same theorists considered that it useful as security studies to be centered on identifying, locating and evaluating of the most important security measures initiated by the main actors of social life, believing that in this way would achieve a map of contemporary issues of security, each being identified by four variables: feature spatial (local, regional, global); the sectoral locating (military, political, economic, cultural, environmental); the identity of the main actor (state, actors of society, international organizations); the nature of the reference object (states, nations, principles, environment) (Sarscinschi, 2005, p. 11).This type of approach

THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY: A SHORT THEORETICAL APPROACH

161

introduces, theoretically and practically, in the security issue and also in developing of a new doctrines security, the identity issues and this was evidenced at the NATO Summit, Rome (1991) by highlighting of five dimensions of security: military, societal, political, economic and environmental (Dungaciu, 2007, p. 13).

By analyzing the main specific trends of the security environment since the beginning of the XXI century and, also, the few definitions of security examined above, we can notes the importance of the issue of non-military dimension of security in recent years. This does not mean that the military dimension has lost from importance, but rather the military and non-military field are deeply interrelated.

On 2nd December 2004, the UN Secretary General presented in front of this organization a report entitled "A more secure world: our shared responsibility projects". The document proposed the implementing of a new framework of analysis and to proceed to concrete action by the United Nations in the security field, highlighting the need for different conceptual approaches in the context in which the concept of security must be correlated with the concept of collective security; the report, also, examines and identifies the sources of threats (both, old and new) who can affect all states "rich or poor, strong or weak" (UN High-level Panel on Threats, 2004).

The document underlines that threats to international security which derived from interstate conflicts, degenerating into more complex problems and so the states perceive new threats to security and try to answer them, either unilaterally or by means of international institutions. The defining of security implies the identification of all possible threats and whether this has been acknowledged as a vital necessity even after the end of the Cold War, now it is important that many international organizations to adjust their mechanisms to face the new challenges. Among these organisms, the report stresses the importance of restructuring the UN, who represents the main universal organization what ensure establishing / restoration of peace and security in the world.

The report submitted to the UN (in December 2004) synthesizes the need for to redefine and readjustment of the concept of security in terms of a plurality of perspectives, in the context of the 21st century. However, there are analysts who warn against excessively enlargement of the area of defining the concept of security, while others point out that "security, as a last resort, has as reference objects the human individuals and the problems that affect their daily lives" (Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 15).

In these circumstances, although most nations of the world embrace the values of representative democracy and market economy offering new opportunities to achieve sustainable peace, there are many security challenges both at nationally and regionally level, and, also, globally.Even if the former adversaries from the Cold War are now partners security issues (and not only), ethnic, economic, social and environmental tensions continues to cause instability.Current

ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI

162

security environment is characterized by several tendencies associated to geopolitical and military threats which nations and their armed forces will have to face in the future.There are some obvious regional threats to the security, and regarding this perspective many regional powers work to increase the material, the technology and information resources that can improve their military capabilities.

The UN experts considers that today are obvious two categories of risks general applicable to international security: ones soft (examples of this extreme poverty, lack of education, unemployment, contagious diseases, environmental degradation, religious extremism, human rights violations, etc.) and hard type (international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intra and inter-state conflicts etc.)(Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 15).Some analysts share the view that the 21st century began on 11 September 2001, that imposeda new way to approach the issues of security; after that date can no longer talk about "just a soft dimension of international security; many authors consider such an approach obsolete today, a cultural reconstitution of the political reality; conversely, what they remark is a fusion of hard security (e.g. terrorism) and soft security (e.g. organized crime)" (Duna, 2005, pp. 12-13).

The argument is that security in the new era is a complex concept, a relational phenomenon because can't be understood as national security (of a state) without understanding the model of international interdependence of security and including the regional one.Regarding to this issue the regional security complex theory gives a different perspective on security structure "by evaluating the relative balance of powers and mutual relations within and between regional and global latest trends.The regional security complex theory distinguish between the interaction of global powers that are able to transcend the distance and interaction at the subsystem level of small powers whose context is at the local level. The core idea of the regional security complex theory is that, from the most dangerous threats to the shorter distances, the security interdependence is normally moderated by a group of countries which form the security complex"(Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 30- 31).

We can speak by the existence of a security complex when two or more states develop mutual relations, and constantly having an obvious impact on other decisions, so as to behave as parts of a whole."The security complexes exist only when they have common interests and values, themselves conceive as being related to a common set of rules, they participate at work of common institutions and share a common culture or civilization" (Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 30-31)."Today, the Greater Middle East is a good example for a more comprehensive analysis mentioning that in defining the shape and the structure of the security complexes the cultural and racial patterns may be an important contributing factor, even though come only after the models of perception of security, which are the main defining factor. This cultural and racial factor is particularly clear in the Middle East, a vast area which extends from Morocco to Oman, from Syria to Somalia. In this area, the idea of the

THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY: A SHORT THEORETICAL APPROACH

163

Arab nation and the transnational political force of Islamism are combined to create a strong regional political arena. Both, the arab nationalism and Islamism awakened the identity of the regional states and legitimize an unusual high degree of interpretation of security" (Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 57-58). References: Andreescu, A. (2001). “Obiective prioritare ale realizării securităţii naţionale în domeniul

ordinii publice”. In Securitatea naţională la început de secol XXI, 17-22. Cercul militar național: StudiiStrategice de Securitate.

Buzan, Barry. 1983. People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

Dungaciu, D. (2007). Organizaţii de Securitate [Security Organizations]. Universitateadin Bucureşti: Facultatea de Sociologie şi Asistenţă Socială.

Duna, D. (2005). Raport de cercetare – Grant: Securitatea europeană în contextual globalizării relaţiilor internaţionale. Revista de Politica Ştiinţei şi Scientometrie, Special Number: 1582-1218. [Universitatea „Babeş-Bolyai” din Cluj-Napoca].

Rogojanu, D.-C. (2007). Teoria complexului regional de securitate: complexul de securitate european. Iaşi : Lumen.

Sarcinschi, A. (2005). Elemente noi în studiul securităţii naţionale şi internaţionale. Bucureşti: Universitatea Naţională de Apărare.

Tarnoff, Peter, and Kreisler, Harry. (2000). Making Foreign Policy in a Democracy: Conversations with Peter Tarnoff. In Conversations with History Series, Institute of International Studies. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Tarnoff/tarnoff-con0.html. Accessed: 16 octombrie 2016.

United Nations. (2004). UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A more secure world: our shared responsibility. UN doc. A/59/565, 2 December 2004. http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/ abstract/10/3/435. Accessed: 2 august 2008.

Copyright of Scientific Annals of 'Alexandru Ioan Cuza' University of Iasi: Political Science is the property of Alexandru Ioan Cuza University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.