Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Khatchik Derghoukassian
khatchikd@hotmail.com
It is fair, hence, to consider Walts article as the opening of the post-Cold War
debate about security studies. This debate, of course, was closely linked to the general
debate about the field of international relations as an academic field, and, thus, hardly is
it separated from the broader International Relations (IR) theory. Moreover, as security
during the Cold War was closely associated with realist and neorealist paradigm, much
of the concepts involved in the post-Cold War debate evolved around the classical
realism vs. the rest scheme. Thus, while realists, after a first moment of disconcert,
made a comeback enriching and even renovating their usual notions, as well as
diversifying more the variants of the realist paradigm, neoinstitutionalists seized the
opportunity to advance in their agenda of peace and cooperation, and post-positivists of
all tendencies discovered an empty territory to lay new foundations of the field of
security studies. Meanwhile, many distinctive features of the post-Cold War era, which
shaped the international security agenda, made their way into the theoretical field and
were incorporated to the debate, often modifying a good deal of the prevailing
tendencies. United States Grand Strategy, humanitarian interventionism, ethnic
warfare, transnational threats, among others, were focused by security analysts and IR
theorists engaged in the debate about security studies. By the time the post-Cold War
came to an abrupt end on September 11, 2001, the debate about a new direction of
security studies had accumulated an impressive literature among books, article, essays,
Ph.D. candidate. This essay is part of the ongoing doctoral dissertation Illicit Associations in the
GlobalPolitical Economy: The Courtesan State, Arms Trafficking, and International Security, University
of Miami.
policy papers, etc. However, hardly a consensus has been reached about the scope of the
field, the methodology, or a research agenda. Moreover, if in 1987 certain tendencies
were clear (Nye, Lynn-Jones 1988, 5), by the end of 2001 it was the discrepancies
among analysts and perspectives that were clearer, rather than tendencies. More than
ten years on, however, it is clear that the field is very different than it once was, but
alive and well, writes Steven E. Miller on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary
of International Security. (Miller 2001, 26) The agenda is found to be full, diverse,
interesting and important. (Miller 2001, 32)
In this essay I examine the evolution of the field of security studies in the post-
Cold War decade. I argue that after the renaissance of the field by the mid-1970s, the
1991-2001 period marked a movement of reformation. By that I sustain that, though
the field still drives its strength and importance from real-world security issues, a
healthy diversification of the approaches to these issues has enriched it. I find that the
qualitative improvement of the field did result from the critical questioning of the
concept of security and its evolution toward the more complex nonetheless more
useful understanding of the process of securitization of an issue. Thus, the new
framing of security allows analysts and policy makers to better understand, explain and
design policies in the field.
My inquiry is based on selected texts from a broad range of post-Cold War
security literature. I deliberately have chosen and examined the documents referring to
the theoretical debate and used descriptive issues or case studies only when they were
helpful for general theoretical purposes. I have also tried to respect the chronology of
the evolution of the debate, though most of the notions often reappear over time.
Beyond opposing different points of view, my intention is to throw the theoretical path
leading to the framing of security for which I focus a distinctive feature of the debate:
the multiplication of the non-state actors and their increasing impact on security, along
with the changing role of the state.
I begin in part I by examining Walts 1991 article. Then I compare Walts article
with the essays of Nye and Lynn Jones, and Miller. I conclude this first part of the essay
with remarks about the post-1991 debate and the imperative of theory. Part II focuses
the post-Cold War security debate between realists, neoinstitutionalists and post-
positivists. I begin with the coming-back of realism. In section two I analyze the newest
contributions of neoinstitutionalists. I conclude this part with the critical inquiry of
issues that open way to the framing of security. Part III refers to the theoretical setting
of the concept of securitization. Section one and two examine the changing role of the
state in the security debate and its importance for a new framing of security studies.
Section three analyzes the concept of securitization through the framework designed
by Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde 1998). I highlight the
theoretical ground and the practical aspect of the framework for analysts and policy
makers. In the conclusion of my essay I focus the post-September 11, 2001 world and
show how the concept of securitization is still very useful for the analysis of security in
the age of globalization.
2
Robert Jervis, Cooperation under the Security Dilemma, World Politics 30 (January 1978).
assumptions about states motives or the sources of information about states motives,
the importance and severity of the security dilemma can decrease. (Glaser 1997, 193)
These and other modifications of realist theory suggest, that the much-
anticipated death of realism is premature. Realism remains a powerful and valuable
explanatory framework, the end of Cold War notwithstanding. () [S]ome variant of
realism [is found] helpful in understanding the foreign policy predicaments of particular
states. This holds for the advanced states of the capitalist world, as well as for the states
of the former communist world. And, it applies in the arena of foreign economic policy
as well as in what is usually considered realisms traditional preserve national security
policy. (Mastanduno and Kapstein 1999, 3) In the post-Cold War unipolarity of the
international structure, states still compete for a better position in an anarchic
environment. If military competition is de-emphasized, states will compete for power
and influence in other realm and over other values. (Mastanduno and Kapstein 1999,
11) Overall structural analysis, however, should look within the black box to
understand unipolar politics. To preserve the unipolar moment, for example, United
States should not rely only on the relative distribution of capabilities, but also on the
effectiveness of diplomatic skills. Through policies of engagement and reassurance,
U.S. officials can dissuade or at least delay other states from challenging U.S.
hegemony and balancing against the United States. (Mastanduno and Kapstein 1999,
168) Although built on the balance of threats theory, this policy conceptualization
echoes clearly the broadening of the dimension of security dilemma by aggregating the
greed factor and the unit-level knowledge of state motivation. Two different variants of
structural realism, in other word, meet and, furthermore, derive into a more classical
realism argument highlighting statecraft rather than mere capabilities.
The focus on economy, as well as the institutional perspective, both coming from
a liberal background, contributes to the field of security studies by highlighting a new
set of problems and a structural reality of the post-Cold War. One interesting question
for the security agenda, and, at the same time, a challenge to neoliberal institutionalism,
is whether a successful institutionalization of international security can also provide
answers to the more conflict-prone issues of economic security.
May 2002
References