POST-COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES
Introduction
Security studies in a global context, or often referred to as international security
studies, is a sub-discipline of international relations (IR) studies. Security studies have
developed in IR studies as an entry point to understanding the driving forces in international
politics. The increase in global conflicts and disasters has made the study of security
increasingly important for policymakers and academics, especially to understand and predict
various behaviors in global politics.
Peter Hough defines IR as the study of all political interactions between international
actors, which include states (represented by governments), international organizations (both
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations), and private individuals. The subject
of international security focuses on some of these political interactions, specifically
concerned with the management of actors' security.1 Albert Carnesale and Michael Nacht
define security as a factor that directly affects the structure of the nation-state system and the
sovereignty of its members, with particular emphasis on the use of threat and the control of
force.2
As a sub-discipline or sub-field of IR studies, the subject of international security
developed rapidly during the Cold War era. The studies of Thomas Schelling, Henry
Kissinger, and most realist scholars of IR were almost exclusively concerned with issues of
international security. In the eyes of realists, the study of international security (as well as
international politics) occupies the most vital position in the study of IR. Many IR textbooks
written by realists are dominated by discussions of international security and international
politics. The study of international security is so important to the study of international
relations that Alan Collins calls the study of international security lies at the heart of
international relations.3 This paper is intended to explain various conceptual developments in
international security studies after the end of the Cold War, preceded by a description of the
history of the growth of international security studies after the World Wars (especially during
the Cold War era).
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
History of The Growth of Security Studies
International security studies is one of the relatively new subjects in IR studies. If
security studies is defined as the study of the nature of, The causes, effects and prevention of
war, the period between World War I and World War II (often referred to as the interwar
period) is arguably a vacuum in the academic tradition on security. During this period IR
scholars believed that democracy, international understanding, arbitration, self-
determination, disarmament and collective security were the most important instruments for
promoting international peace and security.4 They therefore tended to emphasize the
importance of international law and international organizations over military force.
The only academic work that can be said to be a study of international security in the
interwar period is Quincy Wright's 1942 book Study of War. According to William Fox, this
book became important and very famous because of the lack of attention at that time to the
problems of national security and national strategy. In the book Wright said that war was a
problem to be solved, a disease to be cured, and not an instrument of state necessary to create
national security as realists believed. Wright also describes war as a malfunction or failure of
the international system.
In general, the idea of military force as an instrument of state to promote national
security tended to have little place in the interwar period, particularly before 1940. However,
this all changed rapidly after the outbreak of World War II, when the issue of national
security began to take center stage for IR scholars of the time. IR scholars began to recognize
that military power was a major consideration in formulating policies related to conflicts
between states at that time.5 In 1941, for example, a course on war and national policy was
designed by Grayson Kirk, John Herz, Bernard Brodie, Felix Gilbert, Alfred Vagts, and
others who were then teaching at Columbia University. Similar courses were also developed
during World War II at Princeton University, the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania
University, and so on.
David Baldwin describes the post-World War II period as the most creative and
exciting time in the entire history of security studies. Along with the rise of realism in IR
studies pioneered by Hans Morgenthau and others, international security studies began to
flourish in IR studies in the first decade after World War II. Lectures on international politics
and foreign policy began to include security aspects. In fact, in some universities, security
studies are organized into separate courses within IR studies, for example at John Hopkins
University and Columbia University. Professional scientific journals containing writings on
national and international security also began to be published during this period, such as
International Organization (1947) and World Politics (1948).6 At that time, international
security studies were more focused on understanding of the concept of national security, as
East-West relations begin to heat up.
During the period 1945-1955, many IR scholars recognized the importance of military
power as an instrument of statehood. But security studies at that time had not paid much
attention to the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence. There was no central theme or
single research question that dominated security studies at the time, but there were four long-
standing themes that IR scholars highlighted. First, security is not seen as a primary goal by
all states at all times, but rather as one of several values, as well as a relative importance that
varies from state to state and from one historical context to another. Second, national security
is seen as a goal to be pursued through both military and non-military techniques of
statehood, a warning against over-reliance on armaments in general. Third, awareness of the
security dilemma often leads to an emphasis on caution with regard to military policy.
Fourth, much attention is paid to the relationship between national security and domestic
issues, such as the economy, civil liberties and democratic political processes.
International security studies reached its golden age in the second decade after World
War II, 1955-1965.8 In this period security studies were dominated by the problem of nuclear
weapons and related issues such as arms control and limited war. The central question was
how can a state use mass destruction weapons as an instrument of policy when the risks are
reciprocal. This question represented a shift in focus from security studies in previous
decades. IR scholars who contributed to these new security topics included Thomas
Schelling, Glenn Snyder, William W. Kaufmann, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry
Kissinger, and others. One of the most popular security theories at the time was deterrence
theory.
Traditional Approaches to Security
International security studies grew out of debates about how states deal with internal
and external threats after World War II. According to Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, since
World War II several theories or approaches have emerged that attempt to create a
comprehensive explanation of international security, including realism (and neorealism),
strategic studies, post-structuralist security studies, postcolonial security studies, peace
research, feminist security studies, critical security studies, human security, the Copenhagen
school, and international security studies constructivism.9 However, many scholars divide
these theories or approaches into just two broad approaches, namely the traditional security
approach and the non-traditional security approach.
Traditional approaches to international security focus on state actors and their
capabilities to protect national security. It represents the thinking of realists, strategic studies
and peace studies. Traditional security approaches pay more attention to conventional
security issues, which generally involve violence and destruction, which pose a threat to a
nation. They define national security as the ability of a state to withstand external
aggression.11 Therefore, what is discussed by the traditional approach is usually related to
military and armament issues, such as war between states, military aggression/intervention,
insurgency, civil war, arms race, and so on. The period from the 1930s to the 1970s is said to
be the era of dominance of the traditional approach in the study of international security.
Realism describes the world order as a system of actors with competing interests
under conditions of anarchy. This realist understanding of world order has a direct influence
on their definition of security, which is usually associated with anarchy. Before the end of the
Cold War, realist definitions of security dominated security studies. Henry Kissinger, a realist
scholar and former US secretary of state, argued that 'how we realistically view our national
interests is at the heart of our concern for security'.12 Therefore, security studies, for realists,
focus on the state as guarantor of security, the state system as the determinant of state
behavior, and security is equated with national interest.
Alan Stolberg, quoting from the US National Security and Policy Strategy, says that
the threat of anarchy in the international system affects security strategy. In this context,
security is understood as the language of insecurity and threats to nation-states. Therefore,
the idea of an anarchic state system remains largely unchallenged, even by liberalist thought,
which is the opposite of realism. Realists do not require states to commit aggression, but they
do assume that there is a sense of threat in the international system. According to Kenneth
Waltz, states will use force to achieve its goals under anarchy. However, Waltz continues, the
ultimate goal of states is not power, but security.
Neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, placed their thinking at
the center of the security debate from the beginning. Just like realists, they argue that states
are the main actors when we talk about security, and the anarchic nature of the international
system encourages states to pursue offensive military capabilities to defend or to expand
themselves.14 The basic idea is that the more militarily powerful a state is, the better for its
security. Although according to Kenneth Waltz, power is not the ultimate goal of states,
almost all neo-realists see power as crucial for security, and that power should manifest
primarily in the form of a strong military.
In addition to realism and neorealism, one perspective that is included as a traditional
approach to international security is strategic studies. In looking at international security
issues, strategic studies focus on the responses of states and other actors to the international
security environment. If security is the condition, strategy is the reaction. Strategic actions
taken by a state (actor) in turn affect the security conditions faced by other states (actors). In
other words, although security is a condition, strategy can also trigger or be an independent
variable of security. Strategic studies highlight issues of the use of force that have a major
influence on regional and international security conditions, as well as on the national security
conditions of a country.
Peace studies (or peace research) is also one of the traditional perspectives on
security issues. However, this school of thought born after 1945 is far more advanced than
state-centric realism (neorealism) or strategic studies that are concerned with power politics
and military security. Peace studies comes with a reconceptualization of violence and seeks
to focus on conflict resolution and peace-building. Through understanding the nature of
mankind's conflicts and the reasons behind them, peace studies academically seeks to address
not only peaceful resolution but also define and specify a positive conception of peace as a
condition that can be employed towards a process as well as a goal.
Non-Traditional Approaches
In the 1990s, the traditional approach had little place in the international security
studies community. IR scholars specializing in international security issues began to take a
new, non-traditional approach. Barry Buzan calls this non-traditional security approach the
critical security approach, which emphasizes the idea that the individual is an important
entity for security.17 Other schools of thought that can be classified under this non-traditional
security approach include constructivism, post-structuralist security studies, post-colonial
security studies, feminist security studies and human security.
According to Keith Krause, critical theory studies of security issues emphasize
central themes and research agendas on: how threats and appropriate responses are
constructed, how the 'object' of security is constructed, and what are the possibilities of
transforming the security dilemma. Critical theory encapsulates six central claims (regarding
the constitution of the world's political actors, their dynamic and constructed nature, the
methodological tools and epistemological claims that accompany them, and the purpose of
theorizing) that are characteristic of the critical approach to security studies.18 This critical
theory of security studies is often known as part of the Aberystwyth or Welsh School.
Meanwhile, the poststructuralist school, which began to engage in security studies in
the late 1980s, was driven by a number of factors. First, poststructuralist philosophy had been
a major feature of the humanities since the 1970s and thus aligned with the trend of security
studies that began to focus on people (rather than states). Second, poststructuralism's concern
with power, structures, and the knowledge effects that order them, seemed to resonate quite
well with core themes in classical realism on security studies. Third, poststructuralism is part
of a broad political and normative contestation that sees the US-US nuclear bipolarity of the
second period of the Cold War as an 'evil empire'. Fourth, like peace scholars,
poststructuralists are also sharply critical of the way the Third World is exploited by the West
through military, political and economic superiority.
Another new school of security studies that stands out in the post-Cold War era is
postcolonialism. This school of thought comes as a critique of the Euro-centric or Western-
centric character of security studies since World War II. By taking what historical geography
has to offer in support of security studies, postcolonialism systematically seeks to delineate
the role of the global South in global security relations, which has led to a view that different
from Europe and the West regarding world politics. In the postcolonialist view,
understanding security relations (past and present) requires mutual constitution between the
Western and non-Western worlds, and recognition of their shared role in making history.
Meanwhile, the feminist perspective on international security emerged as a critique of
IR theories that are too oriented towards the man's world, such as activities related to power
and conflict.21 Feminism's criticism or dissatisfaction with IR studies is mainly directed at
international security studies. As Ann Tickner says, international security theories and
practices are still a man's world. Women's positions in international security policy-making
are also a rare phenomenon. In addition, scholarly texts on international security that refer to
women or gender factors as a whole are difficult to find.
Feminist theory, which is explicitly normative and often emancipatory, believes that
claims of objectivity and universality of knowledge (especially that of men) should be
questioned, including theories of security. Feminists seek to develop what they call "practical
knowledge" or knowledge developed from the everyday practices of society, of which
women are an integral part.23 They believe that theories of security cannot be separated from
the everyday practices of the international community. Women, like men, have knowledge,
perspectives and experiences that can be brought to and involved in the formulation of
theories and policies related to international security issues. Therefore, IR theory (especially
the study of international security) should no longer "marginalize" the existence and role of
women.
In that regard, constructivist perspectives on international security can be broadly
classified into two types, namely conventional constructivist and critical constructivist. The
concepts that conventional constructivists rely on are norms and identity, while critical
constructivists pay more attention to the concepts of power and discourse. Conventional
constructivists discuss the role of norms and identity behind international security issues.
Conventional constructivists differ from rationalists in their view of security ontology, as
they emphasize social ontology, namely how ideational or normative structures shape agents
and their interests. Because individuals and states are As social 'beings', discussing individual
and state security cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning.
Meanwhile, critical constructivism by Cristian Reus-Smit and Richard Price, although
referred to as a new generation of critical theory, is still labeled constructivism because of its
characteristic concern for the social construction of world politics. In terms of international
security, critical constructivists focus on how "perceptions of threats as objects of security are
socially constructed". If mainstream IR theories are concerned with the question of 'why' and
are meant to be explanatory, then critical constructivist approaches are concerned with the
question of 'how' and are meant to be understanding. In security research, critical
constructivists emphasize discourse and linguistic methods, the use of language in the social
construction of international security issues.
Broadening and Deepening Security Issues
In essence, the features of international security studies before and after the Cold War
are much different. This difference does not only occur in the issues discussed, but also in the
methodology used to discuss or research these issues. In terms of methodology, post-Cold
War security studies tend to start taking into account the 'subjectivity' aspects of the actors.
Meanwhile, in terms of the issues discussed, various new issues were introduced, such as
environmental problems (global warming, climate change, pollution, erosion of resources),
poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, refugee and migration problems, natural disasters,
drug trafficking, transnational crime, information security, and so on. The notion of non-
traditional security assumes that these unconventional issues are common problems of all
countries and that collective affirmative action is required to address them. In addition, non-
traditional security approaches are also oriented towards individual security, rather than state-
centric oriented as the realist (traditional) approach.
According to Emma Rothschild, what has actually happened is not a "change", but a
"broadening of meaning" of the concept of international security. Entering the 1990s, there
were at least four "broadenings of meaning" regarding the concept of international security.
First, it was extended downwards, where the concept of security was extended from national
security to security of groups or security of individuals. Second, extended upwards, which is
the extension of the concept of national security to the security of the supranational physical
environment, from a state-orientation to a biosphere-orientation. Third, it is extended
horizontally, where the concept of security is extended from military security to political,
economic, social, environmental security, or often to the security of the environment called
human security. Fourth, self-extended, where political responsibility for maintaining security
begins to grow, so the concept of security diffuses in all directions.
This tendency to broaden or deepen is one of the defining characteristics of non-
traditional security scholars. They introduce the concept of 'human security' and argue that
the primary object of reference for security should not be states, but individual people,
including institutions and groups. Richard Falk, for example, believes that security should be
defined as 'the negation of the insecurity specifically experienced by individuals or groups in
concrete situations'.27 Ole Waever also says, security is not just the military defense of a state,
but also x and y and z - having the beneficial effect of expanding the realm of security, to
encompass the social and political agenda as a whole.
According to Roland Paris, the concept of human security emerged almost
simultaneously with concepts such as common security, global security, cooperative security
and comprehensive security. The emergence of the concept of human security makes the
study of security move from a focus on the state to the individual. This concept emphasizes
the importance of human rights, safety from violence and sustainable development.29
Although the term human security was introduced by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the concept emerged from the merger of a number of different
concepts, including the concepts of human development, sustainable development and the
responsibility to protect.
UNDP distinguishes the concept of human security in seven dimensions, namely: (1)
economic security - ensuring each individual has the minimum necessary income; (2) food
security - ensuring physical and economic access to basic foodstuffs; (3) health security -
ensuring minimum protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles; (4) Environmental
security - protecting everyone from short- and long-term destruction of nature, man-made
threats to nature, and degradation of the natural environment; (5) Personal security -
protecting every individual from physical violence; (6) Community security - protecting
everyone from the extinction of traditional values and relations, and from ethnic and sectarian
violence; (7) Political security - ensuring everyone lives in a society that respects basic
human rights.
In addition to the concept of human security or individual security, adherents of non-
traditional security approaches also introduce the concept of 'securitization'. Almost all IR
analysts agree that 'securitization' is a distinctive concept that distinguishes the Copenhagen
school from other IR schools that discuss security. The existence of the concept of
'securitization' in IR studies has become more established and widely known. In the academic
context, the number and scope of scientific publications related to 'securitization' continues to
increase from time to time. Meanwhile, in the practice of international relations, the concept
of 'securitization' has also been widely applied in the foreign and security policies of many
countries.32 This concept is often applied in constructing transnational crime33 and HIV/AIDS
issues as security threats, to various dimensions of the 'war on terror', and minority rights.
The concept of 'securitization' itself first entered the realm of IR studies through Ole
Waever (1995). The concept of 'securitization' was intended by Waever as a refresher on the
tiresome debate between those who claim that threats are objective (i.e. what really
constitutes a threat to international security) and those who maintain the view that security is
subjective (i.e. what is perceived as a threat). In order to avoid or shortcut this debate, the
Copenhagen school suggests that security should be seen as a speech act, where the central
issue is not whether or not a threat is real, but the ways in which a particular issue (troop
movements, migration, or environmental degradation) can socially become a threat. This
notion of speech act has a long tradition in philosophy, which refers to the idea that by saying
something, something is done.
In other words, just as naming a fighter plane is a speech act, saying the word
'security' can also be seen as an act through which all kinds of issues (military, political,
economic, and environmental) can become a threat. However, according to Ole Waever and
his colleagues in the Copenhagen school, not all conversations about 'security' qualify as
'securitization'. A speech act can be called 'securitization' if it meets certain rhetorical
structures, derived from war and historical connotations of survival, urgency, threat and
defense. This is why the Copenhagen school defines 'securitization' as having to meet three
rhetorical criteria. 'Securitization' is a discursive process in which an actor: (1) claim that a
referent object is existentially threatened; (2) claim the right to take extraordinary precautions
to counter that threat; and (3) convince the audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter
that threat is justified.35 In short, by labeling something as 'security', an issue can be
dramatized into a matter of the highest priority.
It can be argued that 'securitization' is a process whereby problems that are not
politicized (not discussed) or politicized (publicly debated), are elevated to security issues
that need to be addressed with urgency and justified by ignoring public debate and
democratic procedures. The Copenhagen school initially studied security in terms of five
different issues from non-exclusive sectors: military, political, economic, social and
environmental.36 But later the analysis of 'securitization' expanded to various sectors, such as
health, immigration, human rights, minority rights, human trafficking, and terrorism. Since
'securitization' allows for emergency measures beyond the control of democratic norms,
Copenhagen school scholars generally suggest 'desecuritization' as a better mode of problem
solving. For example, in dealing with the threat of terrorism, deradicalization methods are
better than eradication through violent means (military means).
The concept of 'securitization' gained full recognition from IR scholars starting in
1998 after the publication of the book Security: A New Framework for Analysis (by Barry
Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap Wilde). Many books and scientific works on 'securitization'
were published after the publication of Buzan's (et al) book. For example, in 1998 Jef
Huysmans published a work entitled "Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative
Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe". This scientific article published in the
European Journal of International Relations in detail reviews the development of the
Copenhagen madhab and critically reviews the idea of 'securitization' as a speech act that
follows a certain grammar. It also links 'securitization theory' with other innovations
introduced into security studies by the Copenhagen school such as the concept of the 'security
complex' and the idea that there are diverse sectors of security.
Another important concept that is also produced by adherents of the non-traditional
security approach is the concept of regional security. One of the theories developed in
relation to the concept of regional security is the regional security complex theory developed
by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in their 2003 work entitled Regions and Powers: The
Structure of International Security. The concept of regional security complexes addresses the
concentration of security in geographically defined areas. Security issues are difficult to
spread widely, and threats are likely to arise within the region. The security of each actor in a
region interacts with the security of other actors. There is usually a high degree of security
interdependence within a region; cross-regional interdependence is not. One of the most
interesting regional security studies in the post-Cold War era is the study of security
communities using the constructivist approach of Amitav Acharya, Hasan Ulusoy, Raimo
Vayrynen, Vanessa Parekh and others.
Conclusions
The concept of security (both in national and international contexts) has undergone a
change or shift in meaning after the Cold War era ended. In the Cold War era, the concept of
security in IR studies was always associated with military matters. Security was associated
with the concept of military threats and avoiding conflicts between national states. In other
words, the study of international security is the study of the threat, use and control of military
force. However, after the Cold War era dissolved, the meaning of the concept of security was
expanded, so that it refers more to the protection of human life (protection of human life)
from various types of forces that threaten the existence and development of life.
Thus, post-Cold War international security studies have undergone a process of
widening or broadening in terms of the subjects studied. International security studies are no
longer too focused on conflicts and military strategies of major countries, but have widened
and expanded on issues that during the Cold War era were marginalized by various high-level
diplomacy, such as environmental degradation, economic security, scarcity of energy and
other natural resources, infectious disease problems, and others. In addition, post-Cold War
international security studies have also shown a trend towards deepening, i.e. a process of
shifting emphasis from the security of the national state to greater attention to the security of
the individual. This shift in focus has led to increased interest in the topic of 'human security',
as well as a recognition that the application of the concept of 'national security', which has
been glorified by many states, does not include or protect the 'security of the individual'.***
