ULUSLARARASI POLİTİKA - Deneme Sınavı - 2

One of the best examples of the desecuritisation appeared in South Africa after the end of the Apartheid regime. The race issue in South African society was de-securitised in the sense that it was taken out of security realm and put back into the realm of politics.

Wars in previous centuries that shaped the known international systems were all fought among two or more most powerful states of the time. Military and ideological difference between the US and USSR created a bipolar international system and a Cold War, which disallowed the two super powers to engage in a direct large-scale military conflict one against another.

Economic interdependence is one of the basic arguments of the Liberal school of thought. States having adopted free trade and worked for economic integration, are in a position of win-win with the states they interact in an interdependent manner. Economic interdependence is believed to produce not only financial benefits but also bilateral/multilateral political gains.

Academic impassion to provide a systemic analysis for the conflicts around the world led to production of the theory of ‘the Clash of Civilisations’ by giving priority to the collusion of different cultural and civilizational identities of the warring sides in conflicts, such as in the former Yugoslavia among Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbians, and Muslim Bosnians.

This is a state of zero-sum-game situation in which power gain of a state means, or seen as, absolute loss of other state(s) in the opposite side.

Neofunctionalism: Neofunctionalism emerged in order to explain newly emerging European integration process in the 1950s

State, individual, and group of individuals belonging to a specific nation, ethnicity, sect, or gender are considered as security subjects that varied opinions among politicians, academics, and experts put one or some or all as their priority to protect or concentrate on

Disputes between Arab states and Israeli over Palestine, Pakistan and India over Kashmir, Ethiopia and Somalia over Ogaden, Morocco and Algeria over Western Sahara are just few of numerous such examples in the Third World

First, the Realism points out that international system is anarchic. Second, power is the defining notion of state behaviors in the anarchic international environment according to the Realist Thinking on Security.

Realism points out that international system is anarchic. Realism is a state-centric approach in international politics. Therefore, security in Realist thinking concentrates on state security with respect to its relations with other states in external arena.

Liberal views agree on the key characteristics of international politics with those of the Realists. Liberalism sees security in international politics actually the way the Realism does. Liberal perspectives, however, challenge the Realist security assumptions in particular, and their views on functioning of international relations in general, by putting cooperative examples of international affairs forward, including in the area of security

The new international order after the Cold War is, often, described as disorder because there is not as clear-cut division in international political system as it was during the previous era. For academics in international politics, this has created numerous new empirical data and new interpretations to the old, but still existing, arguments regarding the analyses of security in international politics. Neither have states in their behaviors limited themselves with the sharp division of old international security thinking. These do not, however, suggest that intellectuals and statesmen have all given up old way of security thinking and practices. They exist and are very much alive today in international politics. The end of the Cold War with the increasing globalisation has brought about changes and processes in international relations, all of which together have given additional new meanings to, and produced implications for, security in international politics.

Security is a contested concept not because it is difficult to define as a word, but because it refers to a situation in which there are numerous referent objects and actors being in a constant interaction. Security as a word refers to being relatively safe or free from harm and danger. Actors of international politics pay utmost attention and devote huge resources to a condition in which they feel safe or free from danger and harm.

Constituent elements of security have yet multiplied since the end of the Cold War in terms of who or what should be protected and who or what pose threat to security. State, individual, and group of individuals belonging to a specific nation, ethnicity, sect, or gender are considered as security subjects that varied opinions among politicians, academics, and experts put one or some or all as their priority to protect or concentrate on.

The Realism points out that anarchy does not necessarily refer to chaos and disorder. It means the absence or lack of a common international authority to regulate the relationships among constituents of international system.

Indeed, leading Classical Realist Hans J. Morgenthau defined politics among states (nations) as “struggle for power and peace” (Morgenthau, 1948). For him, power for states is a tool and an objective at the same time in order to protect and project their interests. As interests can be subject to change and increase, then foremost interests of states always are to seek more power. Actually, for Morgenthau, international politics is all about power politics.

liberalism on security declares that cooperation, and security is possible under anarchy 

Despite some differences, Classical Realism and Neo-realism as a whole body of Realist paradigm share some common assumptions that are key in understanding security in international politics. First, the Realism points out that international system is anarchic. Second, power is the defining notion of state behaviors in the anarchic international environment (Ibid: 33-34). Third, states are the most important units/ actors in international politics. Fourth, states are unitary and rational actors.

They are more than agents of states in their search for power (IGOs)

They are more than agents of states in their search for promotion of national interests (IGOs)

They are more than agents of states in their search for seeking security (IGOs)

For the Liberals, international governmental organisations (IGOs) and international regimes are more than agents of states in their search for power, promotion of national interests, and seeking security. As for international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and multinational corporations, the Liberals see them as not dependent but independent actors pursuing their autonomous agendas which greatly influence state choices and decisions in international politics (Nye and Keohane, 1971a: 337). As Keohane and Nye assert, transnational and sub-national actors which are involved in intensive communication, information, transportation, and finance across state borders play a significant role in many international interactions (Ibid: 332).

Common characteristic of the Critical perspectives regarding security is that they challenge given social and political relations, and identify “ways in which they might be radically changed” (Dannreuther, 2007: 49; Mutimer, 2013: 76).

Securitisation is a framework for security analysis developed by the Copenhagen School at the Conflict and Peace Research Institute in Copenhagen in the 1990s. The concept of the Securitisation, formulated in the works of Ole Waever, Barry Buzan and Jaap de Wilde, broadens content of security by including military and non-military fields into the security studies.