UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies

SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity

1











SEES GS32




SECURITY, IDENTITY, POLARITY:
THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATES






CONTENTS

1. Course information
2. Reading list (by seminar topic)




Dr FELIX CIUT


2012

Please bring this guide with you to the seminar Please bring this guide with you to the seminar Please bring this guide with you to the seminar Please bring this guide with you to the seminar
SCHOOL OF SLAVONIC
AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
2
SEES GS32
SECURITY, IDENTITY, POLARITY: THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATES

Credit Rating 30 UCL credits (8 ECTS) Pre-requisite: hard work
Course convenor DR. FELIX CIUT Room 424 16 Taviton Street
f.ciuta@ucl.ac.uk; 02076798764
Office hours Monday 2-3; Tuesday 11-12
Seminars 1x2hours per week Total: 10 x 2hr
Assessment 100% coursework
Coursework 1 x 800-1000 words book review Not assessed 12.11.2012
1 x 1500 words policy analysis paper 40% of the final mark 10.12.2012
1 x 3,500 words essay 60% of the final mark 21.01.2013

COURSE RATIONALE
Recent episodes like the war in Georgia, the GWOT, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Kosovo constantly
keep security in the headlines. But what exactly is this security we incessantly hear about? Although
sometimes a glance at the news channels might you give the impression that this is not only obvious, but also
banal, the question what is security has always been at the core of the discipline of Security Studies. This is
not just a theoretical question, because all attempts to have security in other words, all security policies
are premised on particular ways of understanding security.
So what do we need (to know) in order to have security? Is power enough to be secure and is the
international distribution of power (i.e. polarity) the key to understanding security in all its forms? Yet think
of this: former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice observed that the fundamental character of regimes
now matters more than the international distribution of power. Does this mean that who has power matters
more than power itself? Is identity the clue for understanding security-related issues?
SIP explores these questions and provides an advanced introduction to contemporary security
theory. Our discussions will be structured by the identification of three distinct logics of security (war, threat
and risk), and three distinct analytical levels (international/regional, national and individual) which shape the
formulation of security theory and policy alike.
SIP is designed with a view to signalling the intrinsic relationship between the practice and theory of
security. This is not only to increase your awareness of the indispensable role of theory in the evaluation of
security problems and strategies, but also to emphasise that security practitioners routinely deploy concepts
of security in official documents, policy statements, and standardized security procedures. We will highlight
the conceptual, epistemological and methodological issues at stake in the analysis of security policies.
You should note that SIP will not because it tries not solve your dilemmas regarding the reasons
for NATOs intervention in Libya, the conflict in South-Ossetia, or Polands perceptions of energy
insecurity. However, by the end of the course you will be better equipped to understand and analyse various
points of view and especially your own point of view regarding any such issues. The seminar format and
the varied nature of the coursework seek to increase your theoretical understanding and analytical skills,
enabling you to formulate conceptually precise and empirically informed analyses of contemporary security
issues.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
3
COURSE AIMS
The course is intended to:
Give students an in-depth understanding of contemporary concepts of security;
Reflect the changing nature of security concepts and their relationship with security policy;
Give students the conceptual tools and analytical skills for the empirical study of security issues and policies;
Promote and improve students presentation and communicative skills.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
Identify, describe and critically assess the key contemporary debates in security theory;
Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between theories of security and security policies;
Evaluate the security doctrines and policies of states and international organisations;
Give a well-organised presentation and participate actively in informed debates on security issues.

COURSE ORGANISATION
Attendance
Attendance at seminars is compulsory. If you know in advance that circumstances beyond your
control will prevent you from attending, you should contact the programme administrator.
Details can be found in the SSEES Handbook for Masters Students, and on Moodle.

Seminars
Format Each seminar is based on presentations prepared by students and group discussions. Some
seminars may include a short introductory exposition of the topic by the lecturer.
Preparation You can expect your lecturer to be well prepared and to offer guidance, clarification and
explanations. You cannot expect your lecturer to give a lecture. Seminars are designed to provide as
much opportunity as possible for you to participate and apply your knowledge. You will enjoy and
benefit from the seminar depending on your knowledge and willingness to participate in discussions.
Reading materials are listed under the seminar subject heading.

Security Portfolios
All students will be allocated to a small group which will prepare jointly a portfolio on a security issue
of their choice.
The topics of security portfolios will be established during the first seminar meeting.
Security portfolio groups will present their work in a 25 minutes presentation and a set of briefing papers
which will be uploaded on Moodle.
The role of the security portfolios is to encourage the application of the theoretical and conceptual
knowledge acquired in the course to cases and issues of interests to students.
Details about the preparation and presentation of security portfolios will be discussed in the first seminar.

Moodle
This course uses a Web-based Virtual Learning Environment called Moodle. When you log in to Moodle
you will have access to the course guide, seminar notes, reading materials organised by seminar topic,
dedicated email, useful links, and more. Log in using your UCL username and password
You are all required to register to Moodle, because all communication regarding the course (outside
class, naturally) will take place through that environment. You will therefore need to monitor email and
discussion postings regularly.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
4
ASSESSMENT
The course will be examined by coursework only. You will have to prepare 3 materials:

1 x 800-1000 words book review Non-assessed Deadline 12.11.2012

1 x 1500 words policy analysis paper 40% of final mark Topic approved by FC 20.11.2012
Deadline 10.12.2012
1 x 3,500 words essay 60% of final mark Topic approved by FC 11.12.2012
Deadline 21.01.2013

The Book Review must be submitted only via Moodle.
ONE hard copy of the PAP and the ESSAY must be submitted to the administration office, room 341.
An electronic copy of all coursework must also be submitted on Moodle. This will be checked using the
JISC detection service, Turnitin.
Your work will not be assessed unless both hard copy and electronic versions are submitted.

Format:
Submit your work in Word format. Name the file SIP Coursework Type YOUR NAME.
for example: SIP PAP Mia Wallace; SIP Essay Vincent Vega
Late submission The full allocated mark will be reduced by 5 percentage points for the first working
day after the deadline for the submission of coursework. The mark will be reduced by a further 10
percentage points if coursework is submitted during the following six days. If the essay is submitted after
seven days but before the relevant final deadline (first day of Term 3), the mark will be 0% but the
student will still complete the course. If not submitted at all, the student would be incomplete, unless
the coursework in question represented less then 20% of the overall module assessment.
Extensions If circumstances beyond your control prevent you from submitting coursework by the
deadline, you must contact me for an extension.
Extensions are granted only in special circumstances; dogs, cats, computer viruses, Lord
Voldemort, vampires and ninja-pirate-zombie-robots are regular occurrences on our
planet, so their potential interference with coursework is not a special circumstance.
Style All coursework should be typed, 1.5 spaced, and checked for spelling and grammar errors.
Referencing All coursework must contain both a bibliography and referencing system. Up to 10
points will be deducted from the mark if the bibliographical and referencing apparatus is unsatisfactory.
You can find more information regarding coursework bibliography and referencing, advice about
writing the essays, and the criteria used to mark them on Moodle, under Coursework.

Book Review (see Moodle for further instructions)
Length: 800-1000 words. Deadline: Monday, 12 November 2012
Titles: choose from the list of titles available on Moodle;
The rules concerning plagiarism and referencing apply.

Policy Analysis Paper (see Moodle for further instructions)
Length: 1500 words. Deadline: Monday, 10 December 2012
o Your choice of document must be approved by me on or before 20 November 2012
Topic a security policy document of a country or international organisation;
The rules concerning plagiarism and referencing apply.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
5

Essay (see Moodle for further instructions and potential topics)
Length: 3500 words. Deadline: Monday, 21 January 2013
o The essay topic must be approved by me on or before 11 December 2012
Topic one of the theoretical and conceptual issues covered in the course.
The rules concerning plagiarism and referencing apply.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a very serious offence. All students must consult the UCL Statement on plagiarism.
Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of another persons thoughts or words or artefacts or software
as though they were a students own. Any quotation from the published or unpublished works of other
persons must, therefore, be clearly identified as such by being placed inside quotation marks, and
students should identify their sources as accurately and fully as possible. A series of short quotations
from several different sources, if not clearly identified as such, constitutes plagiarism just as much as
does a single unacknowledged long quotation from a single source. Equally, if a student summarises
another persons ideas, judgements, figures, software or diagrams, a reference to that person in the text
must be made and the work referred to must be included in the bibliography.
Recourse to the services of ghost-writing agencies (for example in the preparation of essays or reports)
or of outside word-processing agencies which offer correction/improvement of English is strictly
forbidden, and students who make use of the services of such agencies render themselves liable for an
academic penalty.
Use of unacknowledged information downloaded from the internet also constitutes plagiarism.
Where part of an examination consists of take away papers, essays or other work written in a students
own time, or a coursework assessment, the work submitted must be the candidates own.
It is also illicit to reproduce material which a student has used in other work/assessment for the course or
programmes concerned. Students should be aware of this self-plagiarism. If in doubt, students should
consult their Personal Tutor or another appropriate teacher.
Failure to observe any of the provisions of this policy or of approved departmental guidelines constitutes
an examination offence under UCL and University Regulations. Examination offences will normally be
treated as cheating or irregularities under the
Regulations in respect of Examination Irregularities. Under these Regulations students found to have
committed an offence may be excluded from all further examinations of UCL or the University or of
both.

Turnitin
You should note that UCL has signed up to use a sophisticated detection system to scan work for
evidence of plagiarism and the School uses this for assessed coursework. This system gives access to
billions of sources worldwide, including websites and journals, as well as work previously submitted to
SSEES, UCL and other universities.
All coursework submitted in SIP will be checked through Turnitin.


COURSE ADMINISTRATION AND COMPLAINTS
The course convenor is Dr Felix Ciut. Queries or complaints should be addressed to the course
convenor or your personal tutor, who will advise you on further course of action.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
6
READING and PREPARATION
You are expected to read extensively for this course. Our seminars rely significantly on student
discussions and debates, and their success depends on your contributions being precise and well informed. Your
reading must cover every seminar topic; you can expect to have to read around 100 pages of text every week.
Below you will find reading materials organised by seminar topic. There is a vast amount of
publications on international security in books, journal articles, and a myriad of webpages, so this reading list
is not and cannot be comprehensive. Although the list may appear very long, the number and diversity of
sources is designed to improve your access to materials.
Most of the materials from this reading list are articles from academic journals. Given the changing
nature of the subject, it is very important that you keep up to date on contemporary policy issues and the state
of the art in theory. Read quality newspapers, use web sources and browse the new issues of IR theory and
international security journals, where most theoretical articles on international security are published.
Conduct your own searches on topics that are of special interest to you; this will be necessary and expected
of you especially when you research your portfolio, your essay, and later your dissertation.
I have tried to make as many materials as possible available online through the Moodle page of the
course, where you can find some of the sources listed, as well as additional material not listed in this guide. I will
add new material as it becomes available, so logon to Moodle weekly. I can also provide some materials for
those interested from my own resources, although more on some topics than on others.

Background Reading

Introductory: These are textbooks that may be a useful starting point especially for students who have had no
previous training in IR/security.

Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Dannreuther, R. (2007) International Security: The Contemporary Agenda (Cambridge: Polity)
Hough, P. (2008) Understanding Global Security, 2
nd
edition (London: Routledge)
Williams, P. (ed.) (2008) Security Studies: An Introduction (London: Routledge).


More advanced: The following texts have been very influential in shaping the discipline in the past decade.
Most have been around for a while and a bit of hunting should dig up second-hand copies as well as new ones.

Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era
(Brighton: Wheatsheaf) [This is one of the most influential books in the discipline of Security Studies.
Its ideas have been substantially refined since its publication, so it will feel a bit dated in the light of
the newer literature, but it is still a landmark text.]
Buzan, B. el al. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner) [The most
detailed presentation of securitization theory and sectoral security]
Croft, S. and Terriff, T. (eds.) (2000) Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass) [A
text that reflected on the state of the art in the discipline of Security Studies.]
Katzenstein, P. (ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press)
[Something of a classic already, this volume opened the discipline to a whole range of new concerns.]
Lipschutz, R.D. (ed.) (1995) On Security (New York: Columbia University Press) [An excellent collection that
still captures well the transformation of the discipline of Security Studies in the past two decades.]

UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
7
SEMINAR TOPICS

1. Security Studies: A Secure Discipline?
Introduction. Definitions of security
2. Security: Concepts, Logics, Paradigms
Definitions of security. Securitization
3. The Level of Analysis Problem in Security Studies
Levels of analysis in IR. Security levels
4. Security in the War Paradigm
Anarchy and polarity; hegemony; security complex theory; region-building approaches
5. Security in the Threat Paradigm
Beyond war & peace: the sectoral approach economic, environmental, political & societal security
6. Security and Identity
Who matters: norms, anarchic cultures, cultures of national security
7. Securing People
Beyond the state: emancipation; human security; critical security
8. Security in the Risk Paradigm
Beyond levels and sectors: risk; biopower, biopolitical security assemblages
9. Making Sense of Contemporary Security
Truth, power, and the politics of security analysis
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
8
READING LIST BY TOPIC
Texts marked * are particularly relevant, but all the texts listed are useful.
You will find some of the key readings, plus other materials and documents, on Moodle.
More materials will be posted on Moodle as they become available throughout the term.
Please do not limit your reading to Moodle materials.

1. Security Studies: a secure discipline?
Key seminar themes:
What should Security Studies study?
What is the relationship between the theory and practice of security?

Arms Control (1992) Forum: What is Security and Security Studies? Revisited, 13(3): 463-544.
Baldwin, D. (1995) Security Studies and the End of the Cold War, World Politics 48(1): 117-141.
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [Chs. 1, 2]
C.A.S.E. Collective (2006) Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto, Security
Dialogue 37(4): 443487.
*Croft, S. and Terriff, T. (eds.) (2000) Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass).
[Chs. 2, 3, 4]
Kolodziej, E. (1992) Renaissance in Security Studies: Caveat Lector, International Studies Quarterly 36(4):
421-438. [Kolodziej answers to Walts paper, below.]
*Kolodziej, E. (1992) What is Security and Security Studies? Lessons from the Cold War, Arms Control 13(1):
1-31.
Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (1996) Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,
Mershon International Studies Review 40(2): 229-254.
Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (1997) From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies,
in Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (eds.) Critical Security Studies (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press), pp. 33-59.
McSweeney, B. (1999) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press). [Chs. 2, 5]
*Walt, S. (1991) The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly 35(2): 211-239.


2. Security: concepts, logics, paradigms
Key seminar themes:
Can security be defined? Should security be defined?
Is the traditional understanding of security still relevant and sufficient?
What does securitization tell us about how security works?

The concept of security
*Baldwin, D. (1997) The Concept of Security, Review of International Studies 23(1): 5-26.
Bubandt, N. (2005) Vernacular Security: The Politics of Feeling Safe in Global, National and Local
Worlds, Security Dialogue 36(3): 275-296.
Buzan, B. (1997) Rethinking Security after the Cold War, Cooperation and Conflict 32(1): 5-28.
Dalby, S. (1997) Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security
Discourse, in Keith Krause and Michael Williams (eds.) Critical Security Studies (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press), pp. 3-32.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
9
Fierke, K. (1997) Changing Worlds of Security, in Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (eds.) Critical Security
Studies (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 223-252.
Hansen, L. (1997) A Case for Seduction? Evaluating the Poststructuralist Conceptualization of Security,
Cooperation and Conflict 32(4): 36998.
Matthews, J. T. (1989) Redefining Security, Foreign Affairs 68(2): 162-177.
Tickner, J.A. (1995) Re-visioning Security, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds.) International Relations Theory
Today (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 175-197.
Ullman, R. (1983) Redefining Security, International Security 8(1): 129-153.
*Wolfers, A. (1952) National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol, Political Science Quarterly 67(4): 481-
502.

Securitization theory
Aradau, C. (2004) Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation, Journal of
International Relations and Development 7(4): 388413.
Balzacq, T. (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context, European
Journal of International Relations 11(2): 171-201.
Balzacq, T. (ed.) (2010) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London:
Routledge).
*Buzan et al. (1998) Security: a New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner). [Ch. 2]
Ciut, F. (2009) Security and the Problem of Context: A Hermeneutical Critique of Securitization Theory,
Review of International Studies 35(2): 301-326.
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [Ch. 7]
Elbe, S. (2006), Should HIV/AIDS Be Securitized? The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/AIDS and Security,
International Studies Quarterly 50(1): 119-144.
Hansen, L. (2000) The Little Mermaids Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the
Copenhagen School, Millennium 29(2): 285-306.
Hansen, L. (2011) Theorizing the Image for Security Studies: Visual Securitization and the Muhammad
Cartoon Crisis, European Journal of International Relations 17(1): 51-74.
Knudsen, O.F. (2001) Post-Copenhagen Security Studies, Security Dialogue 32(3): 355-368.
Laustsen, C.B. and Wver, O. (2000) In Defence of Religion: Sacred Referent Objects for Securitization,
Millennium 29(3): 705-739.
Roe, P. (2004) Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization, Security Dialogue
35(3): 279294.
Sjstedt, R. (2008) Exploring the Construction of Threats: The Securitization of HIV/AIDS in Russia,
Security Dialogue 39(1): 7-29.
*Wver, W. (1995) Securitization and Desecuritization, in Ronnie Lipschutz (ed.) On Security (New York:
Columbia University Press), pp. 46-86.
Wver, O. (1996) European Security Identities, Journal of Common Market Studies 34(1): 103-132.
Wver, O. (1998) Insecurity, Security, and Asecurity in the West European Non-war Community, in
Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds.) Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), pp. 69-118.
Wver, O. (2000) The EU as a Security Actor: Reflections from a Pessimistic Constructivist on Post-
Sovereign Security Orders, in Kelstrup, M. and Williams, M. (eds.) International Relations Theory
and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security, and Community (London: Routledge), pp.
250294.
Williams, M.C. (2003) Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics, International
Studies Quarterly 47(4): 511-531.

UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
10
3. The level of analysis problem in Security Studies
Key seminar themes:
Why is the level of analysis important?
Is Buzans distinction between international, national and individual security still relevant?
Do the level and unit of analysis influence the formulation of security policy?

Levels of analysis in IR
*Singer, J.D. (1961) The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations, World Politics 14(1): 77-
92.
*Waltz, K.N. (1959) Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University
Press). [Introduction; 80-123, 159-186, 224-238]
*Buzan, B. (1995) The Level of the Analysis Problem in International Relations Reconsidered, in Booth,
K. and Smith, S. (eds.) International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 198-216
Gourevitch, P. (1978) The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,
International Organization 32(4): 881-912.
Graham, A. (1969) Conceptual Models of the Cuban Missile Crisis, American Political Science Review
63(3): 689-718.
Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University
Press) [Ch. 1 Perceptions and the Level-of-Analysis Problem]
Kolodziej, E.A. (2005) Security and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [Ch.
1]
Moravcsik, A. (1997) Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,
International Organization 51(4): 513-553.
Onuf, N. (1995) Levels, European Journal of International Relations 1(1): 35-58.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill). [Ch 1]
Wolfers, A. (1976) The Actors in International Politics, in Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 13-31.

Levels of security analysis
*Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Introduction]
Buzan et al. (1998) Security: a New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner). [pp. 9-20]
Buzan, B. (1991) Is International Security Possible?, in Ken Booth (ed.) New Thinking about Strategy and
Security (London: Harper Collins), pp. 31-55.
Buzan, B. (1995) Security, the State, the New World Order and Beyond, in Ronnie Lipschutz (ed.) On
Security (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 187-211.


4. Security in the war paradigm: international and regional security
Key seminar themes:
What are the systemic determinants of security? Just how determinant are they?
What exactly are regions? What are the distinguishing characteristics of regional security?

International security
*Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Ch. 5 & 10]
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
11
Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International
Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [Chs. 1, 2, 3]
Buzan, B. et al. (1993) The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (New York: Columbia
University Press). [Chs. 1 & 3]
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [Ch. 8]
Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford
University Press). [Ch. 5]
Huntington, S. (1999) The Lonely Superpower, Foreign Affairs 78(2): 35-49.
Huntington, S. (1993) Why International Primacy Matters, International Security 17(4): 68-83.
Jervis, R. (1978) Cooperation under the Security Dilemma World Politics 30(2): 167-214.
Jervis, R. (1993) International Primacy: Is the Game Worth the Candle?, International Security 17(4): 52-
67.
Kupchan, C.A. (1998) After Pax Americana: Benign Power, Regional Integration, and the Sources of a
Stable Multipolarity, International Security 23(2): 40-79.
Layne, C. (1993) The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Arise, International Security 17(4):
5-51.
Mearsheimer, J. (1990) Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security
15(1): 5-56. See also the follow-up in IS numbers 15(2 and 3).
*Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill). [Ch 6]
*Waltz, K.N. (1993) The Emerging Structure of International Politics, International Security 18(2): 44-79.
*Waltz, K.N. (2000) Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security 25(1): 5-41.
Wohlforth, W. (1999) The Stability of a Unipolar World, International Security 24(1): 5-41.

Regional security
Browning, C.S. and Joenniemi, P. (2004) Regionality beyond Security? The Baltic Sea Region after
Enlargement, Cooperation and Conflict 39(3): 23353.
*Buzan, B. and Wver, O. (2003) Regions and Powers. The Structure of International Security (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press) [Chs. 1, 2, 3]
Buzan et al. (1998) Security: a New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner). [pp. 9-20]
Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Ch. 6]
Ciut, F. (2007) Parting the Black Sea (Region): Geopolitics, Institutionalisation, and the Reconfiguration of
European Security, European Security 16(1): 51-78.
Ciut, F. (2008) Region? Why Region? Security, Hermeneutics, and the Making of the Black Sea Region,
Geopolitics 13(1): 120-147.
Hurrell, A. (1995) Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective, in Fawcett, L. and Hurrell, A. (eds.)
Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organisation and International Order (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), pp. 37-73.
Katzenstein, P.J. (1996) Regionalism in Comparative Perspective, Cooperation and Conflict 31(2): 123-
159
*Lake, D.A. and Morgan, P. (eds.) (1997) Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World (Pennsylvania
State University Press) [Chs. 1, 2, 3]
Murphy, A.B. (1991) Regions as Social Constructs: The Gap between Theory and Practice, Progress in
Human Geography 15:2235.
Paasi, A. (2003) Region and Place: Regional Identity in Question, Progress in Human Geography 27(4):
475485.
Vyrynen, R. (2003) Regionalism: Old and New, International Studies Review 5: 2551.

UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
12
5. Security in the threat paradigm: the sectoral approach
Key seminar themes:
Is the sectoral approach a significant shift from the traditional paradigm?
What is the relationship between security sectors?
Are sectors governed by similar security logics?

SEE Moodle for further reading on each sector
*Buzan, B. et al. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner). [Chs. 4-7,
which deal with each of the sectors]
Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Chs. 3 and 10]
Buzan, B. (1991) New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First Century, International Affairs 67(3):
431-451.
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [Chs. 10, 11, 12]
Terriff, T. et al. (1999) Security Studies Today (London: Polity). [Ch. 7]


6. The culture of national security: security and identity
Key seminar themes:
What is identity to security: cause, referent object, variable, requisite, or something else?
What is the relationship between national identity and international norms of security?
What is the relationship between security, identity and power?

Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Ch. 3]
Buzan et al. (1998) Security: a New Framework for Analysis (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner). [Ch. 6]
Campbell, C. (1998) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester:
Manchester University Press). [Introduction and Chs. 6, 8]
Farrell, T. (2002) Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program, International Studies
Review 4(1): 49-72.
*Fierke, K. (1999) Dialogues of Manoeuvre and Entanglement: NATO, Russia, and the CEECs,
Millennium 28(1): 27-52.
Fierke, K.M. (1997) Changing Worlds of Security, in Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (eds.) Critical
Security Studies (London: UCL Press).
*Katzenstein, P.J. (1996) (ed.) The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press). [Chs.
1, 2, 8]
Kowert, P.A. (1998/9) National Identity: Inside and Out, Security Studies 8(2/3): 1-34.
McSweeney, B. (1996) Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School, Review of International
Studies 22(1): 82-93.
McSweeney, B. (1999) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Neumann, I.B. (1992) Identity and Security, Journal of Peace Research 29(2): 221-226.
Schimmelfennig, F. (1998/1999) NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation, Security Studies 8(2-
3): 1998-234.
Wver, O. et al. (1993) Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe (London: Pinter). [Ch. 2, 3]
Weldes, J. (1996) Constructing National Interests, European Journal of International Relations 2(3): 275-
318.
*Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: CUP). [Ch. 6]
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
13
*Williams, M. (1998) Identity and the Politics of Security, European Journal of International Relations
4(2): 204-225.
*Williams, M. and Neumann, I.B. (2000) From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the
Power of Identity, Millennium 29(2): 357-387.

Further reading
Berger, T.U. (1998) Cultures of Anti-Militarism: National Security in Germany and Japan (Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press).
Campbell, C. (1998) MetaBosnia: Narratives of the Bosnian War, Review of International Studies 24(2): 261-
281.
Cortell, A., and Davis, J. (2000) Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research
Agenda, International Studies Review 2(1): 6587.
Desch, M.C. (1998) Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies, International
Security 23(1): 141170.
Farrell, T. (1998) Culture and Military Power, Review of International Studies 24(3): 407-416
Farrell, T. (2005) World Culture and Military Power, Security Studies 14(3): 448-488.
Fierke, K. and Wiener, A. (1999) Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement, Journal
of European Public Policy 6(5): 721-742.
Finnemore, M. (1996) Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociologys Institutionalism,
International Organization 50(2): 325-347.
Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interest in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory, International Security
23(1): 171-200.
Lawler, P.J. (2005) The Good State: In Praise of Classical Internationalism, Review of International
Studies 31(3): 427-449.
Legro, J. (1995) Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press).
Snyder, J. (1991) Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press).
Thomas, W. (2000) Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination, International Security 25(1):
105-133.


7. Securing people: emancipation & human security
Key seminar themes:
What is critical in critical security studies?
How useful is emancipation as a normative goal of security?
Is human security a theory of security? Is it a useful framework for security policy?

Security is emancipation?
*Booth, K. (1991) Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies 17(4): 313-326.
Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Brighton:
Wheatsheaf). [Ch. 2]
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [Ch. 4]
*Duffield, M. and Waddell, N. (2006) Securing Humans in a Dangerous World, International Politics 43(1): 1-
23.
Dunne, T. and Wheeler, N.J. (2004) We the Peoples: Contending Discourses of Security in Human Rights
Theory and Practice, International Relations 18(1): 9-23.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
14
Neufeld, M. (2004) Pitfalls of Emancipation and Discourses of Security: Reflections on Canadas Security
with a Human Face, International Relations 18(1): 109-123.
Newman, E. (2010) Critical Human Security Studies, Review of International Studies 36(1): 77-94.
Pettman, R. (2005) Human Security as Global Security: Reconceptualising Strategic Studies, Cambridge
Review of International Affairs 18(1): 137-150.
*Shaw, M. (1993) There is No Such Thing as Society: Beyond Individualism and Statism in International
Security Studies, Review of International Studies 19(2): 159-175.
Steans, J. (1998) Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press). [Chapter 5]
Tickner, J. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security
(New York: Columbia University Press).
Tickner, J. (2001) Gendering World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press) [Ch. 2]
Weldes, J., et al. (eds.) (1999) Cultures of Insecurity. States, Communities, and the Production of Danger
(London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). [Introduction: Constructing Insecurity]
Wyn Jones, R. (1995) Message in a Bottle? Theory and Praxis in Critical Security Studies, Contemporary
Security Policy 16(3): 299-319.

Human security
Axworthy, L. (2004) Human Security: An Opening for UN Reform, in Richard M. Price and Mark W.
Zacher (eds.) The United Nations and Global Security (London: Palgrave), pp. 245-260.
Cockell, J.G. (2001) Human Security and Preventive Action Strategies, in Edward Newman and Oliver P.
Richmond (eds.) The United Nations and Human Security (London: Palgrave), pp. 15-30.
Collins, A. (ed.) (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [Ch. 6]
Commission on Human Security (2003) Human Security Now (New York: UN).
Gough, M. (2002) Human Security: The Individual in the Security Question - The Case of Bosnia,
Contemporary Security Policy 23(3): 145-191.
Hampson, F.O. (2004) Human Security, Globalisation and Global Governance, in John N. Clarke and
Geoffrey R. Edwards (eds.) Global Governance in the 21
st
Century (London: Palgrave), pp. 177-203.
Kaldor, M. et al. (2007) Human Security: A New Strategic Narrative for Europe, International Affairs 83(2):
273-288.
Khong, Y.F. (2001) Human Security: A Shotgun Approach to Alleviating Human Misery?, Global
Governance 7(3): 231-236.
MacDonald, M. (2002) Human Security and the Construction of Security, Global Society 16(3): 277-95.
Newman, E. (2001) Human Security and Constructivism, International Studies Perspectives 2(3): 239-251.
*Paris, R. (2001) Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?, International Security 26(2): 87-102.
*Srensen, G. (1996) Individual Security and National Security. The State Remains the Principal Problem,
Security Dialogue 27(4): 371-386.
Suhrke, A. (1999) Human Security and the Interests of States, Security Dialogue 30(3): 265-76.
*Security Dialogue (2004) Symposium: What is Human Security?, 35(3).
Williams, P. (ed.) (2008) Security Studies: An Introduction (London: Routledge). [Ch. 16]


UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
15
8. Security in the risk paradigm: the biopolitics of security
Key seminar themes:
How useful are the concepts of risk, biopower and biopolitics for understanding contemporary security?
Can security be achieved in the risk society?

Albert, M. (2000) From Defending Borders towards Managing Geographical Risks? Security in a
Globalised World, Geopolitics 5(1): 57 -80.
Amoore, L. and De Goede, M. (eds.) (2008) Risk and the War on Terror (London: Routledge).
Amoore, L. and De Goede, M. (2005) Governance, Risk and Dataveillance in the War on Terror, Crime,
Law & Social Change 43: 149-173.
Aradau, C. et al. (2008) Security, Technologies of Risk, and the Political, Security Dialogue 39(23): 147-
154.
Aradau, C. and Van Munster, R. (2007) Governing Terrorism through Risk: Taking Precautions,
(un)Knowing the Future, European Journal of International Relations 13(1): 89-115.
Aradau, C. (2004) The Perverse Politics of Four-Letter Words: Risk and Pity in the Securitisation of Human
Trafficking, Millennium 33(2): 251-277.
Beck, U. (2003) The Silence of Words: On Terror and War, Security Dialogue 34(3): 255-67.
Beck, U. (2002) The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited, Theory, Culture and Society 19(4):
39-55.
Beck, U. (2001) World Risk Society (London: Blackwell).
Beck, U. (1995) Risk Society; Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (Cambridge: Polity).
Beck, U. (1994) The Reinvention of Politics, in Reflexive Modernisation: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics
in the Modern Social Order (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).
Bigo, D. (2002) Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease,
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27: 63-92.
Bigo, D. (2006) Internal and External Aspects of Security, European Security 15(4): 385-404.
Bigo, D. (2008) Globalized (in)Security: The Field and the Ban-Opticon, in Bigo, D. and Tsoukala, A.
(eds.) Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes after 9/11 (London:
Routledge), pp. 10-48.
Campbell, D. (2005) The Biopolitics of Security: Oil, Empire, and the Sports Utility Vehicle, American
Quarterly 57(3): 943-972.
Debrix, F. and Barder, A.D. (2009) Nothing to Fear but Fear: Governmentality and the Biopolitical
Production of Terror, International Political Sociology 3(4): 398-413.
Dillon, M. (2008) Underwriting Security, Security Dialogue 39(23): 309-332.
Dillon, M. and Reid, J. (2001) Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War, Millennium
30(1): 41-66.
Elbe, S. (2008) Risking Lives: AIDS, Security and Three Concepts of Risk, Security Dialogue 39(23):
177198.
Elbe, S. (2005) AIDS, Security, Biopolitics, International Relations 19(4): 403419.
Griner, S. (2002) Living in a World Risk Society: A Reply to Rasmussen, Millennium 31(1): 149-60.
Ingram, A. (2010) Governmentality and Security in the US Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), Geoforum 41(4): 607-616.
Krahmann, E. (2010) Beck and Beyond: Selling Security in the World Risk Society, Review of
International Studies 36(3): 1-20.
Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2007) Biopolitics of Specialized Risk: An Analysis of Kidnap and Ransom Insurance,
Security Dialogue 38(3): 315-334.
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
16
Tuathail, G. (1998) De-Territorialised Threats and Global Dangers: Geopolitics and Risk Society,
Geopolitics 3(1): 17-31.
Rasmussen, M.V. (2001) Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society, Millennium 30(2):
285-309.
Rasmussen, M.V. (2004) It Sounds Like a Riddle: Security Studies, the War on Terror and Risk,
Millennium 33(2): 381-395.
Salter, M.B. (2009) Surveillance, in Burgess, P.J. (ed.) Handbook of New Security Studies (London,
Routledge), pp. 187-196.
Spence, K. (2005) World Risk Society and War against Terror, Political Studies 53(2): 284-302.
Williams, M.J. (2008) (In)Security Studies, Reflexive Modernization and the Risk Society, Cooperation
and Conflict 43(1): 5779.


9. Truth, Power, and the Politics of Security Analysis
Key seminar themes:
What is the purpose of security theory? What is the role of the security analyst?
What are we doing when we are analysing security; what should we be doing?

*Behnke, A. (2000) The Message or the Messenger? Reflections on the Role of Security Experts and the
Securitization of Political Issues, Cooperation and Conflict 35(1): 89-105.
Booth, K. (1997) Discussion: A Reply to Wallace, Review of International Studies 23(3): 371-377.
Bger, C. and Villumsen, T. (2007) Beyond the Gap: Relevance, Fields of Practice and the Securitizing
Consequences of (Democratic Peace) Research, Journal of International Relations and Development
10(4): 417448.
Bull, H. (1972[2000]) International Relations as an Academic Pursuit, in Alderson, K. and Hurrell, A.
(eds.) Hedley Bull on International Society (London, Palgrave), pp. 246-64.
*Cooperation and Conflict (1999) Symposium: Observers or Advocates? On the Political Role of Security
Analysts, 34(3) [Contributions by Eriksson, Goldmann, Wver and Williams]
Dijkink, G. (1998) Geopolitical Codes and Popular Representations, GeoJournal 46(4):293299.
Huysmans, J. (2002) Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies. The Normative Dilemma of
Writing Security, Alternatives 27(Supplement): 4162.
Huysmans, J. (1995) Migrants as a Security Problem: Dangers of Securitizing Societal Issues, in Miles,
R. and Thrnhardt, D. (eds.) Migration and European Integration: The Dynamics of Inclusion and
Exclusion (London: Pinter), pp. 5372.
Jentleson, B.W. (2002) The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In, International Security
26(4): 169-183.
Kuus, M. (2007) Intellectuals and Geopolitics: The Cultural Politicians of Central Europe, Geoforum
37(2): 241-251.
Lepgold. J. and Nincic, M. (2002) Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Relations Theory and the Issue of
Relevance (New York: Columbia University Press).
Mallin, M. and Latham, R. (2001) The Public Relevance of International Security Research in and Era of
Globalism, International Studies Perspectives 2(2): 221-230.
Tuathail, G. and Agnew, J. (1992) Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in
American Foreign Policy, Political Geography 11(2): 190-204.
Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. (eds.) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford
University Press). [Chs. 36 & 37]
Rieff, P. (1969) On Intellectuals: Theoretical Studies, Case Studies (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co)
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
SEES GS32 Security, Identity, Polarity
17
*Smith, S. (1997) Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace, Review of International Studies 23(4):
507-516.
Tickner, J.A. (2006) On The Frontlines or Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of
Responsible Scholarship, International Studies Review 8(3): 383-395.
*Wallace, W. (1996) Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International
Relations, Review of International Studies 22(3): 301-321.
Walt, S. (2005) The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations, Annual Review of
Political Science 8: 23-48.
Whiting, A. S. (1972) The Scholar and the Policy-Maker, World Politics 24(Supplement): 229-247.
Wildavsky, A. (1993) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers).