ULUSLARARASI GÜVENLİK - Deneme Sınavı - 5

Key Concepts in Critical Security Studies

Referent Object: It is an object that is taken as the focus for analysis in security studies. As to this concept, there are two main approaches to the security: state-centric security (the state is the referent object) and human-centric approach (human is the referent object). Traditional Security Studies: It refers to Realist, Liberal, Peace Studies and Strategic Studies perspectives in the study of security. All of them prioritize the state as the referent object of security and focus on military threats to the security of the state. Broadening: The broadening security agenda refers to Barry Buzan’s sectoral analysis that the security agenda includes not only military sector issues but also political, economic, societal and environmental issues. Deepening: The state is not only the referent object of security but it also includes human individuals, institutions and groups. Positivism: It claims that social sciences can be built upon the same model as natural sciences. Scientific principles such as objectivity, verification/falsification, and generalization can adapt to the study of society. Post-Positivism: It rejects the idea that it is possible to analyze the natural world and the social world in the same way. There is no objective view (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010:4)

Type of Security: Examples of Main Threats

Food Security: Hunger, famine

Health Security: Lack of access to basic health care, infectious diseases

Environmental Security: Natural disasters, pollution

Personal Security:Physical violence, crime, terrorism

Community Security:Ethnic-religious based tensions

Political Security: Political repression, human rights abuses.

As for security, the world-system theory holds that “the existence of security in the world-system theory is based on the continuity of relations between the peripheral areas and the core areas. In other words, a change in resource distribution is viewed as a threat to security of the system” (Soltani and Yusoff, 2012).

It is possible to classify ISS under two main approaches: Traditionalist and Critical. Military oriented and state-centered conception of Security Studies (SS) and Peace Research are classified under the traditionalist approach whereas the Feminist Security Studies, the Copenhagen School, Poststructuralism, and Constructivist Security Studies under the Critical approach.

Buzan distinguished five models of security due to newly emerging diversity of perceived threats: Political security focuses on the organizational stability of states, systems of government, and ideologies that give them legitimacy.

Technology, innovations and new inventions based on information technologies, precision-guided weapons, and stealth technology have opened new and unconventional forms of warfare: irregular warfare, asymmetrical warfare, psychological and information warfare, cyber warfare, hybrid warfare, and Nano-warfare. Irregular warfare is a violent struggle among states and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.

During the Cold War, international security has been conceptualized within national security perspective that aims to overcome the mutual nuclear global destruction. The study of international security has focused on clearly defined enemies, the threat of use of deadly military force, the fear of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the two bloc’s ideological confrontations, and the attempt to avoid the Third World War.

Collective security is rested on Alexandre Dumas’ d’Artagnan and his fellow Musketeers motto: “One for all, and all for one!” The Musketeers motto has following rules in collective security: If international peace and stability is threatened, international community via the CSO act timely with appropriate acts including public condemnation, economic boycott, sanctions, and the use of force.

The nuclear weapons states are the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)-designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and other states with nuclear weapons (India, North Korea, and Pakistan).

It is possible to explain, analyze and understand the international security in six levels: • Individual level: Security for the individual. • Societal level: Security for the social group, i.e. ethnic, national, religious, linguistic, or community groups. • National level: Security for the state or nation. • Regional level: Security for the region, that is, a coherent security region. • International level: Security for the international society, the society of nations, and most states in the world. • Global level: Security for the planet Earth and space.

The end of the Cold War has revived the effective handling of conflict and the resolution of self-stimulating and self-perpetuating violent conflicts with multidisciplinary analysis. Conflict occurs in different contexts, namely interpersonal, intergroup, organizational, international and global levels.

Conflict can be influenced by attitudes, situations, behaviors, goals, values, and beliefs. In order to cope with the incompatible goals, objectives, images, and emotions, the conflicting parties may use five main conflict styles: Avoidance, Accommodation, Competition, Compromise, and Collaboration.

Types of Human Security Threats: Economic Security: Persistent poverty; Food Security: Hunger anad famine; Health Security: Deadly infectious disease, unsafe food, malnutrition, lack of access to basic health care; Environmental Security: Environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters, pollution; Personal Security: Physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic violence, child labor; Community Security: Inter-ethnic, religious, and other identity-based tensions; Political Security: Political repression, human rights abuses.

The first point of debate on Article 2/4 is the meaning and scope of the concept ‘force.’ According to the positivist approach, which interprets Article 2/4 from a relatively narrow perspective, the use of force in international relations refers to the actual use of military force or to threatening a state with using military force.

Article 2/6 of the UN Charter stipulates that “the Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.” As such, Article 2/6 emphasizes that even those states that are not members of the UN must comply with the Charter’s rules and norms on peace and security as well as it provides a legal ground for UN members to impose sanctions on these states, if necessary.

The right of self-defense is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 provides that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

According to Article 53 of the UN Charter, “The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council.

Chapter VI of the UN Charter empowers the Security Council on the issue of “peaceful resolution of disputes” among states and defines various political and judicial solutions. Whereas these measures would be inadequate, Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives the authorization to the Security Council to take precautions of the implementation of necessary sanctions and coercive measures, including the use of force.

There is no legal arrangement for “peacekeeping” in the UN Charter. In fact, the concept of, and the mission of, peacekeeping is something invented by the then UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, because the Security Council had become paralyzed and perplexed due to the Cold War and especially to the conflictual relations between the two superpowers that made it impossible for the UN to implement the clauses of Chapter VII.

As a rule, the authority to decide on a peacekeeping mission or a military intervention rests with the Security Council. As stated in Article 24 of the UN Charter, “in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members assign the Security Council with the main responsibility to maintain the international peace and security.”