REINTERPRETATION OF SECURITY STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Introduction
This paper aims to explain the state of existing security theories. It describes a part of
the political context with different parts, and some features of the intellectual fields,
international relations and security studies. At this level, the fundamental question is whether
Europeans are concerned with or related to issues of any origin and whether it is the other way
around?
In America, it is common to see the science or study of debates in security studies as
one of offensive realism and defensive realism; previously, almost all theoretical discoveries
in international relations were made in America. Now, a wide variety of theories are widely
associated with places like Aberystwyth (critical security studies), Paris (Bigo's Bourdieu-
inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization).
More recently, a number of theoretical research programs, often referred to as
"schools", have emerged in security studies in Europe. The discipline of international
relations and the sub-discipline of security studies have regularly been characterized as
generally fruitful. As Mike Williams has noted, security studies has become one of the most
dynamic and contested areas in international relations.
Most of the realist and non-realist theories on their home turf, there are a number of
vibrant new approaches to analyzing international politics that have undergone development,
and realism as a theory often used as a debate theory has taken a lot of attention. 1
This has been widely debated among Europeans. An important contribution has
increasingly come from non-Western and American scholars, but the emergence of these
various theories is broadly connected to places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies),
Paris (Bigo's Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization), why in Aberystwyth,
Paris and Copenhagen, why not in Amman, Philadelphia or Calcutta. The development of the
theory in those places is very relevant. The aim is really to get a clearer sense of the context in
which the theory is being developed limited to these European and academic theories.
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
Security Studies as a Sub-Discipline
Security theory has always been linked to international relations theory, but this
correspondence is far from perfect.2 For example, in the 1970s, when interdependence theory
came into its own as the dominant theory in international relations, it opened up a relatively
limited number of security studies.
Therefore, part of the discussion below will be complementary to the discussion of
international relations theories, but in defining the criteria, not the discipline of international
relations as a whole. These theories are described in security studies. Most of this occurs not
in international relations or political science departments, but in most think tanks, foreign
policy research institutes and similar venues.
Most of the policy oriented research is relatively theoretical or describes a sense of
habit mixed with theoretical fragments, but broadly speaking the theory is in a match, the
theory in this paper is material empirical theory. The development of these theories is that
"dependent variables" and "independent variables" will be found in both internalist sociology
of science inspired approaches and externalist policy related patterns.
Looking at the interconnectedness of the discipline of international relations in
general, the basis of sub-security studies demonstrates an unusual degree of divergence
between European and American theoretical developments. Nonetheless, it is certainly
possible for these to be balanced differently. One example is the great debate in international
relations over rationalism and constructivism, where overtly constructivists have an easier
time in Europe than in America, and the sharp rational choice core is more influential in
America than in Europe.
But the research communities on each side of the Atlantic at large, agree on the
existence, importance and naturalness of this debate. Only the balance of the two sides is
different. In the same way, the debate in Europe is between liberal Inter-governmentalism
(LIG) and Multi-Level Governance (MILG), where LIG is more American and MILG is more
European.
But almost all "European academics" from the Atlantic know about debates, many of
which are related. However, in security studies, most academics from one side of the Atlantic
will describe and teach the state of the discipline in terms of debates and lessons not
mentioned in similar views. In Europe, there is a great debate, a number of academics
competing in security studies, including Critical Security Studies, The Copenhagen School,
Radical Post-Modernists, Feminists, Bourdieu-Inspired Approaches, and also traditional,
Realist Positions. Some of these are completely unknown to American academics. (In this
case, Canada is more European than American, some of which have their own literature on
Human Security. Therefore, the main difference is not Europe vs North America but Europe
vs America).
Security studies in the US only outlines the Intra-Realist debate between offensive and
defensive realism (and the various differences within realism) with a number of interventions
that complement theoretical arguments and gather empirical data on case studies that pass
through in-depth historical studies. On the other hand, there is a particularly academic debate
for a hypothesis such as Democratic Peace 4 and a growing debate that is more like the
European debate: the Meta-theoretical debate between constructivists and rationalists.
The realist perspective in the study of international relations states that national
security is a condition free from military threats or the ability of a state to protect its nation
state from military attacks originating from the external environment. The impact of this
perspective is the development of military power by the government in the country concerned,
the burden of a large military budget, the influence of the military in domestic and
international politics, and the militarization of civil society.
The neo-realist perspective changes the perspective on traditional security to a new
understanding called the concept of non-traditional security or unconventional security. In this
context, security is no longer placed in the framework of high politics (military) and power,
but as a moral and humanitarian issue.
The United Nations (UN) emphasizes changes in the concept and focus of security
from security that focuses on the state context to community security, from security through
military power to security through development, from territorial security to human security.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in its 1944 report, defined human
security as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The concept of human security
includes: : (1) economic security (assured basic income), (2) food security (physical and
economic access to food). (3) health security (relative freedom from disease and infection),
(4) environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land
system), (5) social security (security of cultural identity), (6) individual security (security
from physical violence and threat), and (7) political security (protection of basic human rights
and freedom).
From a conflict resolution perspective, the means used are often desecuritization rather than
enhancing security, as in the case of the unification of European countries. Didier Bigo is a
leading figure in this development and his journal "cultures and conflicts" has generated a lot
of work related to this research program.
Empirically, Bigo has shown how internal and external security combines competing
agencies to gradually shrink the scope of duties of the police, military and customs. They also
seek to incorporate and manufacture new threats by linking immigration, criminal
organizations and terrorism.
Other participants in this debate are traditionalists and hardcore post-modernists as
well as feminists. By "hardcore post-modernists" we mean people who actively criticize
security. On the one hand, it is easy to relegate this to the institutional realm of security
studies because it seems to be more of an academic problem or approach. For example, in
explaining the "September 11" policy, it is always related to "terrorism". On the other hand, it
is argued that the post-911 debate shows the relevance of the radical side. We cannot just ask
what can be learned from terrorism but must develop strategies to eliminate terrorism. Thus, a
strategy that can be used to eliminate immoral acts and real threats to security such as
terrorism is to not consider it as a threat and the creation of strategies must have elements that
can link it to one's suspicions and concerns.
Feminists have done a lot of work in thinking about security. Feminist thinking has the
idea that individual security should be prioritized, state security is emphasized by
traditionalists, masculinists. Other feminist work has been more post-structuralist and
emphasizes articulating the concepts of gender, state, and security.
To summarize what are the characteristics of the "European Schools" of security
studies are as follows: 1. Reflection on the concept of security, not just on the problem of
describing or analyzing definitions. 2. Examining issues that allow for political expansion 3.
Security as practice 4. Self-reflection: one's actions as a security analyst have implications for
security politics.
European debates are more reflectivist or post-positivist than American. The spectrum
of meta-theoretical positions does not differ much between the US and Europe. Thus, this
debate can be referred to as "constructivism versus security studies". In US security studies,
the discussion is about distinguishing the type of mainstream constructivism that orientates
itself towards "the canons of science" among rationalists, which many European
constructivists combine with more radical positions. Most debates about international security
within the realm of constructivism rule in security studies and sometimes turn into conjectures
of important ideas in security studies.
The debate is also between American positivists versus European post-positivists.
They differ not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-positivism) but also in IR
theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or other methods). It also
focuses on how security studies is differentiated from IR in general in the US and Europe
respectively. Realism is more centralized in security studies in the US than in security studies
in Europe.
The debate between "offensive realism" and "defensive realism" can be the basis of
how to think about the position of the US towards other countries, especially countries that
have great power or influence in the region, although in fact this debate tends to the role of
power (empire) versus institutions and soft power in international rules. The concept of
security studies in the US can be said to be a study of threats, using or controlling armed
forces (military). The empirical theorization of warfare is therefore relevant in that strategies
through sanctions are very difficult to accept.
In European debates, the question of the concept of security has become "the
launching pad" for the general concern over "the self-reflective nature of the discipline". That
the discipline not only discusses security, but also has its own concept of security and its
security practices. "Doing Security" implies reflecting on the practice within the boundaries of
talking about the name (security) of the concept so that there is a close relationship between
the discipline, theory, concepts and objects studied. Another difference is that in Europe,
certain debates are based on specific questions related to security, which increases the
influence on the general IR debate. In the US, the influence is the opposite. Theoretical
positions on security studies are derived from the general IR debate.
In Europe, theorizing now involves the public through discussions on security with
academics, experts and intellectuals so that theories are generated through a complex process
involving the experience of many. It is often argued that IR research in the US is more
connected to policy than in Europe, which is not entirely true as research is more
systematically developed through the various relationships between the sub-systems that
determine policy. However, the relationship between academic studies and policy in the US
also has many disconnects, in contrast to Europe which has a broader concept of politics, not
just as an advisor to policy. What needs to be underlined here is that European theories
developed as an integral part of working on security issues, whereas the US is more about
fulfilling academic debates between various theories. This is what makes theory and policy
relevant in the US, as analysts are tasked with providing relevant knowledge on causal
relationships that can optimize policy decisions. politics and knowledge are not separated as
in Europe where researchers think more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices.
Some scientists try to be policy-relevant, and some do policy-referenced decision-
making that involves people who have meaningful questions to ask about key policies. But
doing this is very demanding and under pressure. The researcher has to think straight ahead
and usually the researcher does not deviate too much from the theorization and not even in the
application either.
This pattern does not create distance or interaction or even tension, as in the case of
Europe it often creates space for innovation, outside of the grip of discipline and big debates.
The constant repetition of not enough contact and interaction to engage in influence is closely
related to the pattern of funding provided to researchers. Where the US has relatively more
and superior funding distributed for competitive advantage, many researchers, especially
individual researchers, are therefore exposed to considerable market pressures and direct
social pressures from weaker institutions. Researchers are almost entirely competing in
relation to common criteria of interest and relevance, whereas the kind of research on human
relations theory and security policy relevance is lacking, located in small and medium-sized
(possibly ad hoc) institutions in Europe, the balance is more towards the policy-making end.
In Europe, there seem to be advanced research institutions that are academically
oriented. But part of university places like the Max Planck institute in Germany. And the ERI
in France, but in the current context the most important is the role of peace research. This is
obviously more influential and certainly very relevant for Ken Booth at Abersywyth
University, but less so in Paris, but the French tradition of public intellectuals plus the very
different relationship between IR and other disciplines, namely the proximity to sociological
studies, explain much of the opposite. On the other hand, theory is a distinct part of the
formation of ways of thinking, which means that peace research is on its own and runs by its
own rules. There are two schools of thought between IR and peace, and researchers tend to
look to IR to generate innovations about peace that draw on IR theory and discipline.
Western Geopolitical Theory of Security
In terms of future development, this will help illustrate the policy competition between
America and Europe. The relevant questions are not short-term, political conditions, or
specific political administrations or governments themselves, these should be larger patterns.
This will be attempted through a grounded analysis of world politics and a look at
Regional Security Complexes (RSCTs). RSCTs are Regional Security Complexes originally
defined by Barry Buzan as "a group of countries that have closely related security concerns
that they do not understand independently of each other" as "a unit in which the securitization
process or both understand that security concerns cannot be addressed in isolation. The basic
idea is to see regional level formations leading towards a global scope, and in this case
domestic factors also have a significant influence.
This is clearly a non-american theory, as the US as a global actor is vulnerable to the
global interpretation of the post-cold war world. The clash of civilizations, unipolarity, the
war on terror or globalization, but in summary world politics will increasingly fail as the
world becomes more diverse there will be no alternative to taking the path in different forms
from different regions. Where security is increasingly shaken in different forms in terms of
dominant units, the main sectors and nature of security issues are seen from all places other
than the US and up to global boundaries. After all it is not so surprising that the main threats
most often come from neighbors or other local powers. Since most threats are easier through
travel from short to longer directions and great powers are beyond this logic to some extent.
A central claim of the theory is that interactions between global and regional actors
occur on terms set by regional actors to a much greater extent than expected by IR theory
which usually privileges a top-down perspective.In contrast to the emphasis of world powers
in understanding Middle Eastern politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated by actors
in the region that open up the possibility of penetration by external actors and are then usually
defined along the lines of indigenous conflict. Different races along important dimensions,
relatively stable archetypes exist a limited number of times, this is because change-significant
external RSCT boundaries are quite fortunate, as theory would be less informative if RSCTs
were constantly mutating, or for that matter were they completely static regarding internal
order. Many RSCTs are more or less centralized, even in accordance with the general
expectation of IR to balance sovereignty.
Regional in terms of its form, i.e. security is about different things, different actors in
most regions point of analysis to one or several questions that will determine their future of
course the oversight of security should cover three areas: global, regional and, global regional
interplay levels.
However, such analysis must have some conception of the global level according to
the RSCT, the "1+4+regions" global structure. The debate on global structure has become
limited by the simple concept of polarity which stems from the failure to distinguish the
regional from the global stemming from the "European-centric" era when global power was
dominated by European dominance the regional balance had to be global, and polarity was a
simple concept. Hence we have a tendency to divide polarity either as multipolar or as
unipolar from everyone excluding from that level "regional powers" but that would not do the
US is not dominant enough to constitute Unipolarity and especially not if it is to imply that
China and the EU are purely regional powers.
Conclusion
Security theory is always linked to the theory of international relations. There are
differences between the development of European and American theories. The perspective
framework of international relations studies that gave birth to the concept of national security
(national security) differs from two mainstream perspectives, namely: The realism perspective
that speaks of traditional security, and the neo-realism perspective on non-traditional /
unconventional security. The debate is not only in the realm of meta-theory (positivism/post-
positivism) but also in IR theory (realism or not) and methodology (historical case studies or
other methods).
