Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen New 'Schools' in Security Theory and their Origins between Core and Periphery
Ole Wæver Professor of International Relations Department of Political Science - University of Copenhagen Rosenborggade 15, D-11!" Copenhagen , Denmar# Phone$ %&5 !5!' !&!1 (a)$ %&5 !5!' !!** e-mail:
[email protected]
+++polsci#d#.people.faclty./0aever2lehtm
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, March 17-20, 2004.
Panel:
Geo-Cultural Epistemologies in IR: Tin!ing Securit" #i$$erentl" FD24 Friday !4" - "!0 PM# $ponsor! %on&ention 'heme
Abstract: Abstract: De(ates in security studies in the ).$. and *urope ha&e drifted almost completely apart. +n *urope it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the %openhagen $chool, traditionalism and feminism. +n the ).$. it is more common to see the maor de(ate ithin security studies as (eing the one (eteen offensi&e realism and defensi&e realism Pre&iously, almost all theoretical in&entions in +/ ere made in the ).$. %urrently, distinct theori theories es are idely idely associ associate ated d ith places places lie lie (erys (erysty tyth th %ritic %ritical al $ecuri $ecurity ty $tudies3, Paris igo5s ourdieu-inspired or3 and %openhagen securiti6ation3. 'he ne *uropean approaches differ not only from security studies in the )$, they also stand apart from most or done in other parts of the orld. re these theories peculiarly 5*uropean5 and if so, s o, hy 'he paper aims ai ms at e8plaining the emergence of these these *urope *uropean an securi security ty theori theories. es. 'he e8plan e8planatio ation n dras dras partly partly on the politic political al conte8 conte8tt in the differ different ent region regions, s, and partly on featu features res of the intelle intellectu ctual al fields, fields, +nternational /elations and $ecurity $tudies. 'he theories are also assessed (riefly as to their rele&ance and usefulness. 'o hat e8tent are they (ound to local, *uropean pro(lems or rele&ant to the issues that are addressed elsehere and &ice-&ersa for the t he theories that flourish in the ).$. and the periphery respecti&ely %an they tra&el to the other parts of the orld in a helpful role
/ecent /ecently, ly, a num(er num(er of theori theories es or research research programm programmes es 9 often often called called :schoo :schools; ls; 9 ha&e ha&e emerged emerged ithin ithin *uropean *uropean security security studies. studies. lthough security studies is ha(itually ha(itually seen as a su(-fie su(-field ld ithin ithin +nterna +nternatio tional nal /elati /elations ons +/3, +/3, these these :schoo :schools; ls; ha&e ha&e not (een (een sector sectorial ial manifes manifestati tations ons of the main main theori theories es as define defined d (y the o&er-arc o&er-archin hing g landsc landscape ape or :grand :grand de(ates; of the discipline at large.
illiams, it is ith some surprise that the discipline recei&es ne impulses from security studies, a corner e8pected to represent the most reactionary and policy o(sessed of a generally reactionary and policy o(sessed discipline3! o&er the past decade, the field of security studies has (ecome one of the most dynamic and contested areas in +nternational /elations. +n particular, it has (ecome perhaps the primary forum in hich (roadly social constructi&ist approaches ha&e challenged traditional 9 largely /ealist and non/ealist theories on their :home turf;, the are in hich some of the most &i(rant ne approaches to the analysis of international politics are (eing de&eloped, and the realm in hich some of the most engaged theoretical de(ates are taing place.1
3his has largely been a 4ropean debate Important contribtions are increasingly coming from both non-0estern and merican scholars, bt the emergence of these distinct theories is +idely associated associated +ith places li#e li#e ber berys yst+ t+yth yth 6Cri 6Criti tical cal Sec Secri rity ty Std Stdie ies7 s7,, Pari Paris s 68igo 68igo9s 9s 8or 8ordie dieinspire inspired d +or#7 +or#7 and Copenha Copenhagen gen 6secr 6secritis itisatio ation7 n7 0hy in berys beryst+y t+yth, th, Paris and Copenhagen : +hy not in mman, Philadelphia or Calctta; Despite the a(o&e cited positi&e responses to these schools, the point of this paper is certainly not to assume that there is something inherently good or prefera(le a(out this particular family of theories and that therefore the causes found should (e taen as guidance a(out hat to do in order to emulate this de&elopment. ?n the contrary, it is &ery liely that theoretical de&elopments elsehere are either generally superior or locally more rele&ant. 'he intention is e8actly to get a clearer sense of the conte8t-(oundness of these *uropean theories and schools. re these theories peculiarly 5*uropean5 and if so, hy 'he paper aims at e8plaining the emergence of these *uropean security theories. 'he e8planation dras partly on the political conte8t in different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, +nternational /elations and $ecurity $tudies. 'he theories are also assessed (riefly as to their rele&ance and usefulness. 'o hat e8tent are they (ound to local, *uropean pro(lems or rele&ant to the issues that are addressed elsehere @and &ice-&ersa for the theories that flourish in the ).$. and the periphery respecti&elyA %an they tra&el to the other parts of the orld in a helpful role
Michael %. >illiams, ;>ords, +mages, *nemies! $ecuriti6ation and >orld Politics;, in International Studies %uarterl", 47 43, "11-"1. For similar claims a(out the &itality and importance of these de(ates, see Bohan Treat &olitics &olitics:: 'e( perspe perspectiv ctives es on securit securit", ", ris! ris! and crisis crisis *riss *risson, on, C+ntrod C+ntroducti uction on in *riss *risson on ed. Treat management , lder ldershot shot!! shga shgate te 2001, 2001, pp. 1-1E, especia especially lly p. 1E note note 13# Bef uysma uysmans, ns, G/e&is G/e&isitin iting g %openhagen! ?r, ?n the %reati&e De&elopment of a $ecurity $tudies genda in *uropeG, European )ournal o$ International International Relations, 4!4 1HHE3 47H-"0I# $te&e $mith, 'he +ncreasing +nsecurity of $ecurity $tudies! Critical Re$lections %onceptuali6ing $ecurity in the Jast 'enty Kears in $tuart %roft L 'erry 'erriff eds.3 Critical on Securit" and Cange, Jondon! Fran %ass 2000, pp. 72-101. 1
2
$ecurity studies as a field or su(-discipline 'he focus of the present paper is on :security theory; as a distinct phenomenon, defined as theory de&elopment for the use in security studies. /elati&ely little has (een ritten on the history and e&olution of security studies2, and the recent a&es of sophisticated, methodologically self-reflecti&e ritings draing on sociology of science and historiography ha&e almost totally focused on the +/ discipline at large. 'here is less of esta(lished con&entions a(out ho to &ie the e8isting situation in security studies regarding main theories and almost nothing in terms of e8planations for their de&elopment. 'his paper ill therefore (e in relati&ely uncharted aters and it certainly should (e seen as a highly preliminary attempt. $ecurity theory is often lin!ed to +/ theory, (ut correspondence is far from complete. For instance in the 1H70s hen interdependence theory came close to (eing the dominant +/ theory, it left relati&ely limited mars on security studies. 'herefore, parts of the discussion (elo ill o&erlap ith discussions a(out +/ theory, (ut the defining criteria ill throughout not (e the discipline of +/ (ut those theories that are dran upon in security studies. Much of this happens not in +/=political science departments, (ut in thin tans, foreign policy research institutes and similar places. ?ften such policy oriented research is relati&ely atheoretical or dras on some common sense mi8 of theoretical fragments, (ut to the e8tent that theory is in play, then hat theories 'hose theories are the empirical material of this paper# the de&elopment of these theories is the :dependent &aria(le;, and :independent &aria(les; ill (e sought in (oth internalist sociology of science inspired approaches and e8ternalist policy related patterns.
'he trans-tlantic split! to different de(ates $een in relation to the general discipline of international relations, the su(-field of security studies e8hi(its an unusual degree of di&ergence (eteen *uropean and merican theoretical de&elopments. +n most other fields, scholars on (oth sides conduct 9 or at least are aare of 9 the same de(ates, e&en 9 or e8actly 9 if these might (e (alanced &ery differently. ?ne e8ample is the :grand de(ate; in +/ a(out rationalism and constructi&ism, here clearly constructi&ists and reflecti&ists ha&e an easier time in *urope than in the )$, and hard core rational choice is $ar more influential in the )$ than in *urope, (ut research communities on (oth sides of the tlantic largely agree a(out the e8istence, importance and nature of this de(ate 9 only the (alance (eteen its to sides differ. $imilarly, ith the de(ate in *uropean studies (eteen li(eral inter-go&ernmentalism and multi-le&el go&ernance, here J+ is more merican and MJ more *uropean, (ut almost all :*uropean studies; scholars on either side of the tlantic nos a(out this de(ate and many relate more or less e8plicitly to it. oe&er, ithin security studies most scholars on one side of the tlantic ould depict and teach3 the state of the discipline in terms of de(ates and studies that are not mentioned in Da&id aldin, $ecurity $tudies and the *nd of the %old >ar, World &olitics, &ol 4E, ?ct 1HH", pp. 117141# Nen ooth, $ecurity and $elf! /eflections of a Fallen /ealist, in Nrause and >illiams eds. Critical Securit" Studies. Minneapolis! )ni&ersity of Minnesota Press 1HH7, pp. E-120# Patric M. Morgan, Ji(eralist and /ealist $ecurity $tudies at 2000! 'o Decades of Progress, in $tuart %roft L 'erry 'erriff eds.3 Critical Re$lections on Securit" and Cange, Jondon! Fran %ass 2000, pp. H-71#$te&e $mith, 'he +ncreasing +nsecurity of $ecurity $tudies! %onceptuali6ing $ecurity in the Jast 'enty Kears in $tuart %roft L 'erry 'erriff eds.3 Critical Re$lections on Securit" and Cange , Jondon! Fran %ass 2000, pp. 72-101# $te&en *. Miller 20013! G+nternational $ecurity at 'enty-fi&e! From ?ne >orld to notherG, International Securit" , Ool. 2I, illiams, Contemporar" Strateg": Teories and &olicies, Jondon! %room elm 1H7", pp. -21. 2
a similar o&er&ie on the other side and &ice-&ersa. ?(&iously, this does not mechanically and fully follo geographical criteria, (ut the trend is ne&ertheless clear.3 +n *urope there is a &i(rant de(ate o&er a num(er of competing schools in security studies! critical security studies, the %openhagen school, radical post-modernists, feminists, ourdieu-inspired approaches, and more traditional, realist positions. $e&eral of these are not non at all to the maority of merican scholars. +n this case, %anada is more *uropean than merican and partly simply itself ith its on literature on :human security; , and therefore the main contrast is not *urope &s. ilin eds.3 Glo*ali+aton, uman Securit", and te A$rican Eperience, Jondon! Jynne /ienner 1HHH# stri $uhre, uman $ecurity and the +nterests of $tates, Securit" #ialogue, &ol. 0!, $eptem(er 1HHH, pp. 2I"-27I# $imon Dal(y, Geopolitical Cange and Contemporar" Securit" Studies: Contetuali+ing te uman Securit" Agenda, 'he )ni&ersity of ritish %olum(ia! +nstitute of +nternational /elations, Wor!ing &aper illiam ain, 'he 'yranny of ene&olence illiam '. 'o, 'he )tility of uman $ecurity! $o&ereignty and umanitarian +nter&ention, Securit" #ialogue, &ol. 23, Bune 2002, p. 177-1H2# le8 B. ellamy and Matt McDonald, ;'he )tility of uman $ecurity;! >hich umans >hat $ecurity /eply to 'homas L 'o, Securit" #ialogue, &ol. 3, $eptem(er 2002, pp. 7-77# 'homas and 'o, aining $ecurity (y 'rashing the $tate /eply to ellamy L McDonald, Securit" #ialogue, &ol. 3, $eptem(er 2002, pp. 7H-E2. $ee also %anada;s uman $ecurity >e( $ite! .humansecurity.gc.ca, uman $ecurity . >. hat $ecurity Dilemma;, Securit" Studies, $pring, "3, 1HHI, pp. H0-121# /andall $cheller, #eadl" Im*alances: Tripolarit" and itler2s Strateg" o$ World Con3uest , inter 2000=01, pp. 12E-I1# ideon /ose, Coring Papers 42=2001, NT(enha&n! %openhagen Peace /esearch +nstitute! http!==.copri.d=pu(lications=>P=>PU202001=42-2001.pdf # $tephen M. >alt, C'he *nduring /ele&ance of the /ealist 'radition in +ra Nat6nelson and elen Milner eds.3 &olitical Science: Te State o$ te #iscipline III , . >.
4
shos the differences, as it ill (e e8plained (elo.
‘Schools’ of security theory in Europe Traditionalism
/
(common sense realism, policy realism
‘Schools’ of security theory in the US
"!!ensi#e realism
De!ensi#e realism
Critical Security Studies
other realisms (postclassical, etc etc$
Copenhagen School
Constructi#ists coming !rom %R in general
Sociological work by Didier Bigo and
&ower and %nstitutions in %nternational "rder (not really anymore the classical %R liberalism
colleagues + risk society
debate o#er 'the role o! institutions, but more )uestions related to the challenges o! building a unipolar order or empire$
Radical postmodernists, !eminists, et al
Possi(le a&enues for e8planation *lsehere, + ha&e ela(orated more complicated and e8tensi&e e8planatory models for the de&elopments ithin +/ theory in a particular region or country E. ?thers ha&e made parallel arguments or rele&ant criticisms of my model. H Much can (e said for or against &arious suggestions for a complete model and the reiten(auch=>i&el one is pro(a(ly the most consistent and comprehensi&e3, (ut for the present purpose, + ill simplify into an e8planation from three factors! •
+ntellectual traditions# the dominance of e.g. positi&ism, historicism or other general orientations.
•
'he organisation of the field in this case! security studies3. enerally defined in the model as the delineation of different social sciences, nota(ly the relationship (eteen la, administration, sociology, history, the humanities and political science=international relations. +n the present case, much of the focus ill (e on the relationship (eteen uni&ersities, thin tans strategic studies# foreign policy institutes3, peace research and the pu(lic including :pu(lic intellectuals;3.
•
Practical usages! policy issues and the political agenda. 'his is not meant to re-import either the traditional, semi-positi&ist &ie, that reality rests in itself and theories only mirror this, nor the general :+/ e8ternalist; understanding of the discipline, according to hich, the de&elopment of +/ can (e understood as a reflection of the de&elopment in :i.r.; real orld international relations3. ccording to the latter, orld ar + e8plained
Press 1HHI, pp. 1-2# /onald J. Bepperson, le8ander >endt, and Peter B. Nat6enstein, orld in Nat6enstein ed.3 Te Culture, op.cit., pp. 4HE-"7# Michael Desch, G%ulture %lash! ssessing the +mportance of +deas in $ecurity $tudies,G International Securit" , &ol. 2, $ummer 1HHE, pp. 141-70 de(ate in International Securit", &ol. 24!1, $ummer 1HHH, pp. 1"I-1E0# 'ed opf, G'he Promise of %onstructi&ism in +/ 'heory.G International Securit", O.2, $ummer 1HHE, pp. 171-200# Dale %opeland, G'he %onstructi&ist %hallenge to $tructural /ealism! /e&ie *ssay,G International Securit", &ol. 2", Fall 2000, pp. 1E7-212# +do ?ren, C+s %ulture +ndependent of i&el and enri reiten(auch, C)nderstanding
"
the raise of idealism and someho the ne8t orld ar ++ ith eVual necessity e8plained the &ictory of realism# icy cold ar periods caused realism and neo-realism, hile dWtente led to interdependence and Neohane. + 9 and rian $chmidt 9 ha&e e8plained elsehere hy this ind of e8planation does not hold. 'he interpretations and :conclusions; reached do not follo from e&ents (ut can only (e understood through the :discourse internal; de(ates 9 cf. the to orld ars that :cause; opposite theoretical orientations. oe&er, the ind of issues a political community is faced ith surely does influence the nature of the de(ate. 'herefore, the formulation a(out Xpractical usagesX! +/ and more so3 security studies are surely used in any sense of the term3 and it is important to ha&e a sense of the challenges and de(ates a community is preoccupied ith in order to understand the nature of the de(ates and there(y the inds of research that appear rele&ant in a gi&en place and time. First, hoe&er, a (rief summary of these :schools; in *urope, (efore e turn to e8planations!
(erystyth, Paris, %openhagen and elsehere 'his section is not meant to gi&e an in-depth or inno&ati&e presentation and critical discussion of the theories. 'hey ill (e only (riefly introduced 9 and the choice of :cities; as metaphor ustified 9 (asically to the e8tent necessary for noing (at to eplain , i.e. hat is it that is characteristic of these theories and the emergence of hich therefore needs to (e understood. 'o hat e8tent the theories are :good;, useful, scientifically satisfactory, progressi&e, etc, is a Vuestion for another 9 or rather many other 9 days. Aberystwyth has (een one of the most important sites for the de&elopment of so-called Critical Securit" Studies.1" mong the three discussed, %$$ is the school that has most clearly (een a (road mo&ement emerging out of many sources and many places, in *urope and certainly (eyond. +n this case, the metaphor of a ton is therefore more pro(lematic, (ut especially for the :emancipatory; ing of %$$, the to main figures are located at the )ni&ersity of >ales, (erystyth 9 Nen ooth and /ichard >yn Bones. 'he defining or of the school, the anthology Critical Securit" Studies, as edited (y to post-%anadians Neith Nrause ene&a3 and Mie >illiams then Portland, Maine3, (ut Mie >illiams mo&ed to (erystyth in 1HHE. 'he name :>elsh $chool; has occasionally (een used a(out this approach.11 %$$ has had non->estern participants in&ol&ed in the de&elopment of the theory, and as e ill see (elo last part of the paper3, it is pro(a(ly the one of the three that most easily ors in a non->estern conte8t.
%$$ argues, that e as researchers should a&oid seeing the orld through the eyes of the state as implied (y using the concept of :national security; as ey category. 'he state is often the pro(lem as much as the solution, and the aim of research has to (e defined in relation to human (eings, not an institution. 'he (est ay to conceptualise security in a ay that ties it in ith people instead of the state is to define it in terms of emancipation. Nen ooth, G$ecurity and *mancipationG, Revie( o$ International Studies, 17!4, 1HH13, pp.1-27# Neith Nrause and Michael %. >illiams eds.3 Critical Securit" Studies. Minneapolis! )ni&ersity of Minnesota Press 1HH7# Neith Nrause and Michael %. >illiams, Croadening the genda of $ecurity $tudies! Politics and Methods, /erson International Studies Revie(, &ol. 40, supplement 2 1HHI3, pp. 22H-2"4# Neith Nrause G%ritical 'heory and $ecurity $tudies! 'he /esearch Programme of 5%ritical $ecurity $tudies5G, Cooperation and Con$lict, ! 1HHE3, pp.2HE-# /ichard >yn Bones, Securit", Strateg", and Critical Teor", oulder %?! Jynne /ienner 1HHH# radley Nlein, GPolitics (y Design. /emapping $ecurity JandscapesG, European )ournal o$ International Relations, 4! 1HHE3, pp.27-4I# radley $. Nlein, Strategic Studies and World Order: Te Glo*al &olitics o$ #eterrence. %am(ridge! %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press, 1HH4# Jene ansen, G %ase for $eduction *&aluating the Poststructuralist %onceptuali6ation of $ecurityG, Cooperation and Con$lict, 2!4 1HH73, pp.IH-H7. 11 $te&e $mith, C'he +ncreasing +nsecurity# op.cit.# le8 B. ellamy, Cumanitarian responsi(ilities and inter&entionist claims in international society, Revie( o$ International Studies, &ol. 2H!, 200, pp. 21-40. 10
I
y implication, the concept of security (ecomes used in a rather classical sense, (ut on a different referent o(ect! it is a(out :real threats;, only the real-real ones against real people and not the allegedly real ones &oiced (y the state. +n this respect, %$$ sometimes comes to sound rather o(ecti&ist in its concept of threats and security, and its political agenda comes close to classical :critical peace research; of the 1H70s altung-$enghaas (rand that used to (e strong in illiams and >Y&er located in different :schools;1, hereas the difference (eteen the approaches of ooth and u6an is pro(a(ly clear enough. 'herefore, at the cost of donplaying in this conte8t some of the most interesting crosscutting ritings, focus ill 9 hen discussing schools 9 (e on the most distinct &ersions and therefore on the :>elsh school; in its emancipatory format. >riters lie >illiams, uysmans, Nrause and ansen are hoe&er important to eep in the picture not least as representati&es of the (roader de(ate around and across these schools.
Strategic Studies and World Order, %am(rdige )ni&esity Press 1HH4.# $imon Dal(y, Creating te Second Cold War , Jondno! Pinter 1HH0# radely Nlein, :Politics (y Design. /emapping $ecurity Jandscapes;, European )ournal o$ International Relations 4 3 1HHE3, 27-4I# Da&id %amp(ell, Writing Securit": 0nited States .oreign &olic" and te &olitics o$ Identit" , )ni&ersity of Minnesota Press 1HH2 and 12
radley $. Nlein,
not least the epilogue to the second, re&ised edition 1HHE, pp. 207-2273# chapters in Nrause=>illiams (y Dal(y and Nlein# articles (y Bim eorge, etc etc etc. 1 ?n a personal note, an element that + find particularly important and thought-pro&oing is one hich /B >aler and Mie >illiams ha&e in different ays contri(uted to! 'he traditional concept of security is not ust a product of un-imaginati&e, positi&ist mainstream scholars ith too close relationships to state policy. dopting a materialist ontology and a positi&ist epistemology as an early modern security strategy, or in a sense a strategy of de-securitisation! the narro concept of security meant to restrict the resort to &iolence and defence to only the state and only in relation to physical threats hich as an important element of the order creating process of remo&ing these instruments from di&erse groups and indi&iduals in the feudal order and from religious and identity referents in the religious and ci&il ars of the 1Ith and 17th %entury. 'hat is! to limit &iolence and esta(lish peaceful order, it as imperati&e to narro the security logic to the minimalist reference of state and ar. 'hus, the concept of security is not an isolated Vuestion and certainly not a purely academic one of post-positi&ist progress, (ut a thoroughly political Vuestion tied in ith the hole modern political language of state, so&ereignty, community and identity. 'o iden or in other ays redefine the concept of security is therefore not an innocent matter of simple conceptual impro&ement, (ut a political mo&e not to (e carried out light-heartedly (ut ith full aareness of the implications of unpacing the >estphalian parcel of political concepts, peace and order. %f. / B >aler, C'he $u(ect of $ecurity, in Nrause=>illiams, pp. I1-E2# Michael >illiams, G%omment on the 5%openhagen %ontro&ersy5G, Revie( o$ International Studies, 24! 1HHE3, pp.4"-441# Michael %. >illiams, G$ecurity and the Politics of +dentityG, European )ournal o$ International Relations, 4!2 1HHE3, pp. 204-22".
7
'he so-called Copenhagen School 14 in security studies is (uilt around three main ideas! 13 securitisation, 23 sectors and 3 regional security comple8es. +n this (rief presentation, + ill focus on the first, (ecause securitisation is hat defines most distinctly the school in a metatheoretical sense. oe&er, it is orth remem(ering the other ey ideas not least (ecause the tensions and interactions (eteen these three e8plain much of the dynamics in the de&elopment of the theory. 1" :$ectors; refer to the distinction (eteen political, economic, en&ironmental, military and societal security. 'he concept of :security comple8es; points to the importance of the regional le&el in security analysis and suggests an analytical scheme for structuring analysis of ho security concerns tie together in a regional formation. 1I Part of the (acground for the %openhagen $chool as the de(ate in politics and security studies in the 1H70s and especially 1HE0s o&er a ide &ersus a narro concept of security. 'he :e&erything (ecomes security; orry of tradtionalists, as met (y the argument that ith a clearer sense of hat maes a security issue a security issue, it is possi(le to e8tend the net idely and loo for security in all sectors and ith all possi(le referent o(ects. +t is
14
'he name :%openhagen $chool; as coined (y ill Mc$eeney in a critical re&ie essay hich turned into an e8change! ill Mc$eeney G+dentity and security! u6an and the %openhagen schoolG, in Revie( o$ International Studies 22!1 1HHI3, pp.E1-H4# arry u6an and ?le >Y&er G$lippery contradictory sociologically unsta(le 'he %openhagen school repliesG, in Revie( o$ International Studies 2!2 1HH73, pp.14-"2# ill Mc$eeney GDurheim and the %openhagen school! a response to u6an and >Y&erG, in Revie( o$ International Studies 24!1 1HHE3, pp.17-140# Mie >illiams G%omment on the 5%openhagen %ontro&ersy5G, in Revie( o$ International Studies 24! 1HHE3, pp.4"-441# ill Mc$eeney, Securit", Identit" and Interests: A Sociolog" o$ International Relations, %am(ridge! %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press 1HHH. 'he %openhagen $chool is usually taen to refer first of all to the or done since 1HE" (y the C*uropean $ecurity research group at the %openhagen Peace /esearch +nstitute, nota(ly its series of collecti&e (oos! *g(ert Bahn, Pierre Jemaitre, and ?le >Y&er Concepts o$ Securit": &ro*lems o$ Researc on 'on-/ilitar" Aspects, %openhagen Papers no. 1, %openhagen! %enter for Peace and %onflict /esearch 1HE7# ?le >Y&er, Pierre Jemaitre and *l6(ieta 'romer eds.3 European &ol"pon"! &erspectives *e"ond East-West Con$rontation, Jondon! Macmillan 1HEH# arry u6an, Morten Nelstrup, Pierre Jemaitre, *l6(ieta 'romer, and ?le >Y&er Te European Securit" Order Recast: Scenarios $or te &ost-Cold War Era, Jondon! Pinter Pu(lisher 1HH0# ?le >Y&er, arry u6an, Morten Nelstrup, and Pierre Jemaitre, Identit", /igration and te 'e( Securit" Agenda in Europe, Jondon! Pinter Pu(lichers 1HH# arry u6an, Baap de >ilde, and ?le >Y&er, Securit": A 'e( .rame(or! $or Anal"sis, oulder %?! Jynne /ienner 1HHE# u6an and >Y&er, Regions and &o(ers: Te Structure o$ International Securit", %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press 200. 'he most thorough re&ie of the school in this respect is Bef uysmans G/e&isiting %openhagen! ?r, ?n the %reati&e De&elopment of a $ecurity $tudies genda in *uropeG, in European )ournal o$ International Relations 4!4 1HHE3, pp.47H-"0I. For important reflections on the origins and conte8t for the emergence of the school, see also se&eral chapters and especially the editors; introduction to3 $tefano u66ini and Dietrich Bung eds.3 Contemporar" Securit" Anal"sis and Copenagen &eace Researc, /outledge 2004. *specially in $candina&ia (ut increasingly (eyond, a lot of :applications; ha&e (een done, (ut also many critical comments and re&isions ha&e (een pu(lished. $ee Bohan *risson, :?(ser&ers or d&ocates ?n the Political /ole of $ecurity nalysts;, i Cooperation and Con$lict , 1HHH!# +&er . ar ! ?r >hy the %openhagen $chool of $ecurity $tudies $hould +nclude the +dea of 5Oiolisation5 in +ts Frameor of nalysisG, International )ournal o$ &eace Studies, !1 Banuary 1HHE3, pp. 7-22# ansen, Jene 20003 G'he Jittle Mermaid;s $ilent $ecurity Dilemma and the (sence of ender in the %openhagen $chool,G /illennium, &ol. 2H, no. 2, pp. 2E"-0I# l(ert, Mathias 1HHE3! :$ecurity as oundary Function! %hanging +dentities and 5$ecuriti6ation5 in >orld Politics;, International )ournal o$ &eace Studies 13! 2-4I# %eyhan, op cit.# >illiams, :>ords, +mages;, op.cit. 1"
$ectors and regional security comple8es stem from arry u6an altough the main reference no is to collecti&e %openhagen $chool (oos Securit", A 'e( .rame(or! from 1HHE and Regions and &o(ers in 200, respecti&ely3. $ecuritisation comes from ?le >Y&er (ut also here the main reference is no a collecti&e (oo Securit": A 'e( .rame(or! 3. 1I 'he concept of regional security comple8 as introduced (y arry u6an in &eople, States and .ear: Te 'ational Securit" &ro*lem in International Relations, ar&ester >heatsheaf 1HE. 'he concept is at the centre of the most recent (oo from the proect group in %openhagen! u6an L >Y&er, Regions and &o(ers: Te Structure o$ International Securit", %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press 200.
E
necessary to (e a(le to discriminate and separate security issues from non-security. ?nly (y ha&ing a clear sense of (at is securit", is it possi(le to open up ithout (eing sept aay. 'he real functions of the term, the po(ers of the concept, are found here it is employed in political practice. Janguage users implicitly follo rules for hat is seen as meaningful statements. 'his approach does not entail conducting opinion polls and asing people hat they thin security means, nor asing philosophers hat ould (e the most logically consistent definition, (ut analysing actual linguistic practices to see hat regulates discourse. >hat do practitioners do in taling security +n security discourse, an issue is presented as posing an e8istential threat to a designated referent o(ect traditionally, (ut not necessarily the state3. 17 'he designation of the threat as e8istential ustifies the use of e8traordinary measures to handle it. 'he in&ocation of security has (een the ey to legitimising the use of force, and more generally opening the ay for the state to mo(ilise or to tae special poer Z eg. using conscription, secrecy, and other means only legitimate hen dealing ith :security matters;. C$ecurity is the result of a mo&e that taes politics (eyond the esta(lished rules of the game and frames the issue as a(o&e normal politics. 'o register the act of something (eing securitised, the tas is not to assess some o(ecti&e threats that :really; endanger some o(ect, rather it is to understand the processes of constructing a shared understanding of hat is to (e considered and collecti&ely responded to as a threat. 'he process of securitisation is a speec act . +t is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real! it is the utterance itself that is the act. y saying the ords, something is done lie gi&ing a promise, (etting, naming a ship3. +t is (y la(elling something a security issue that it (ecomes one 9 not that issues are security issues in themsel&es and then afterards possi(ly taled a(out in terms of security. 1E 'hus the e8act definition and criteria of securitisation is the intersu(ecti&e esta(lishment of an e8istential threat ith a saliency sufficient to ha&e su(stantial political effects. characteristic feature of the %$ is its scepticism toards :security;. +t has often antidemocratic and anti-creati&e implications. 'he usual :critical; strategy of idening security has a pro(lem hen it accepts the underlying assumption of the mainstream approach that :the more security the (etter; and e8tends this to still more areas. $ecuritising en&ironment, identity and religion su(sumes these areas under a pro(lematic rationality. +n contrast, the %$ sees security as a negati&e, as a failure to deal ith issues as normal politics. +deally, politics should (e a(le to unfold according to normal procedures ithout this e8traordinary ele&ation of specific :threats; to a pre-political immediacy. De-securitisation is the optimal long-range option, since it means not to ha&e issues phrased as :threats against hich e ha&e countermeasures; (ut to mo&e them out of this threat-defence seVuence and into the ordinary pu(lic sphere or the economy, or letting religion (e religion 1H, or hat other mechanisms it is then left to3. +n a conflict resolution perspecti&e, the ay forard is often de-securitisation
arry u6an, Baap de >ilde, and ?le >Y&er, Securit": A 'e( .rame(or! $or Anal"sis, oulder %?! Jynne /ienner, 1HHE# ?le >Y&er, G$ecuritisation and DesecuritisationG, in On Securit", /onnie D. Jipschut6 ed.3 , Y&er, C$ecuritisation! 'aing stoc of a research programme in $ecurity $tudies, paper presented to P+P*$, %hicago, Fe(ruary 200. 1E B J ustin, o( to do tings (it (ords, 2nd ed. ?8ford and Y&er, C+n Defence of /eligion! $acred /eferent ?(ects for $ecuriti6ationG, /illennium: )ournal o$ International Studies, &ol.2H no. , 2000, 70"-7H. 17
H
rather than the production of more security, cf. the case of *uropean integration the Monnet method3.20 Paris has (een the main site of a distinct theoretical de&elopment, mostly inspired (y ourdieu and other sociologists, ith a dose of Foucault and a thorough commitment to detailed, empirical in&estigations of actual practices (y &arious agencies 9 practices that often re&eal patterns and processes different from those one find (y studying official discourse. Didier igo is the main figure in this de&elopment and :his; ournal Cultures 6 Con$lits has pu(lished a num(er of important ors in relation to this research programme. 21 lso Bef uysmans ho ha&e ritten e8tensi&ely on the different ne :schools; ha&e clarified and ela(orated important assumptions and implications of the :Paris approach;. 22
*mpirically, igo has amongst other things shon ho internal and e8ternal security merge as agencies compete for the gradually de-territorialised tass of traditional police, military and customs. lso they ointly produce a ne threat image (y constantly connecting immigration, organised crime and terror. +n-security is largely a product of security discourses and security policy. igo starts from a conception of a :field; and its actors and as hat they do. +f done simplistically, the actor-(ased approach could easily (ecome something close to conspiracy theory. ut (y no this or has e&ol&ed into a &ery ela(orate and unusually ell documented mapping of practices nota(ly also at the micro le&el (y the &arious agencies in&ol&ed on the security field. n important ad&antage of this approach is that it (etter than others includes routine practices and e&en de&iation from official policy, i.e. it is less oriented to discourse and more to all practices of agencies. +t is o(&iously a Vuite demanding tas, if you ha&e to penetrate these &arious agencies and agents 9 from police and other (ureaucracies to pri&ate security companies Z and their more or less hidden, ?le >Y&er, :+nsWcuritW, +dentitW ! une dialectiVue sans fin; in Entre 0nion et 'ations: 527tat en Europe, ed. (y nne-Marie Je loannec, Paris! Presses de $ciences Po 1HHE, pp . EE-17. *nglish &ersion as :+dentity and +nsecurity )nlimited; as chapter 10 in >Y&er, %oncepts of $ecurity, )ni&ersity of %openhagen 1HH7.3 ?n the Vuestion of security dilemmas and security systems in the societal sector, see also >Y&er, :+dentity, +ntegration and $ecurity! $ol&ing the $o&ereignty Pu66le in *.). $tudies;, in )ournal o$ International A$$airs, &ol. 4E!2, >inter 1HH", pp. EH-41, and :*uropean $ecurity +dentities; in )ournal o$ Common /ar!et Studies, &ol. 4!1, March 1HHI, pp. 10-2. $ee also! Paul /oe, G'he +ntrastate $ecurity Dilemma! *thnic %onflict as a 5'ragedy5G, )ournal o$ &eace Researc, &ol. I!2, 1HHH, s. 1E-202# Paul /oe, CMisperception and ethnic conflict! 'ransyl&ania;s societal security dilemma, Revie( o$ International Studies, &ol. 2E!1, 2002, pp. "7-74# Pierre assner, :eyond orld $ystem;, International Studies %uarterl", E! 1HH43# Nristian erner, :From the lac $ea to the driatic! *thnicity, 'erritoriality and +nternational $ecurity;, Securit" #ialogue, 24!1 1HH3# /o8anne Jynn Doty, :+mmigration and
Didier igo, &olices en r8sau, l2ep8rience europ8enne, Paris! Presses de $ciences Po 1HHI# igo, :J;*urope de la sWcuritW intWrieure! penser autrement la sWcuritW;, in nne-Marie Je loannec ed.3 Entre 0nion et 'ations, Paris! Presses de la Fondation hen to (ecome one! internal and e8ternal securitisations in Morten Nelstrup and Michael %. >illiams eds.3 International Relations Teor" and te &olitics o$ European Integration, Jondon! /outledge 2000, pp. 171204# igo, Didier 20023 C'o /eassure and Protect, fter $eptem(er 11 on e(-page (y the $ocial $cience /esearch %ouncil Cafter $eptem(er 11, http!==.ssrc.org=sept11=essays=(igo.htm# yse %eyhan, ;nalyser la sWcuritW! Dillon, >ae&er, >illiams et les autres;, in Culture et Con$lits no. 1-2, utomne-hi&er 1HHE# yse %eyhan and nastassia 'souala, C'he $ecuriti6ation of Migration in >estern $ocieties! m(i&alent Discourses and Policies in Alternatives , &ol. 27! supplement, Fe(. 2002, pp. 21-40# uysmans, CDefining $ocial %onstructi&ism, op.cit.# %laudia radau, CMigration! 'he $piral of +n3$ecurity, /u(ion e-ournal, March 2001, http!==&enus.ci.u.edu.pl=^ru(ion=forum=claudia1.htm # %laudia radau, eyond ood and *&il! *thics and $ecuriti6ation =Desecuriti6ation 'echniVues, /u(ion e-ournal, Dec 2001! http!==&enus.ci.u.edu.pl=^ru(ion=forum=claudia2.htm . 22 Bef uysmans, \ in Cultures et Con$lits \ CDefining $ocial %onstructi&ism \ 21
10
transnational netors, (ut it has the great ad&antage of (eing a(le to eep up ith a society increasingly characterised (y professionalisation and technical rationalisation, here specific social positions are pri&ileged in relation to :doing security;. Other participants to this de(ate are nota(ly :traditionalists; to the one side and :hard-core post-modernists; and feminists to the other. y :hard-core post-modernists;, + mean those ho most acti&ely criticise security as such. y lining more directly to
?n the one hand, it is Vuite easy to ridicule this in the institutional setting of security studies, (ecause is o(&iously appears a rather :academic; approach. 'ry to tell policy maers! C$eptem(er 11 'errorism o e8citing Kou should tae this as an interesting chance to de&elop and change and e8perience difference.
Bames Der Derian, 'he Oalue of $ecurity! o((es, Mar8, orshops, Mannheim, 2I-1 March 1HHH. B. nn 'icner, Gender and International Relations: .eminist &erspectives on Acieving glo*al Securit",
11
relation to en&ironment and production systems, o(&iously meet at some point the concerns of :security studies;, especially as security idens (eyond the international into &arious :domestic settings;, and ris simultaneously spreads to (ecoming allegedly the predominant mode of society;s self-reflection.27 o and here these to logics meet and hat it implies is &ery much an open Vuestion and a de(ate that has only ust (egun, (ut it should tie in relati&ely smoothly ith some of the e8isting concerns in the *uropean security de(ate. --n aside on the ter! "schools# ! 'he pattern is not totally consistent, and one can find the term applied to e.g. realism the realist school3, (ut mostly the main theories that are seen as constituting the core de(ates at the centre of the discipline i.e. leading circles in the )$3 are not referred to as :schools;. 'here is no constructi&ist school, >endtian school or Kale%hicago school. 'his is not only (ecause these merican (orn3 theories are seen as too ide-spread 9 i.e. going (eyond any locality 9 (ecause it is generally understood also that :the *nglish school; is not a(out scholarship in England , (ut a specific tradition of or referring to certain referent points >ight, ull, and the hole :ritish %ommittee;3# and the %openhagen $chool eeps (eing used as a name despite the fact that ith groth in applications and the go&ernment;s closure of %?P/+, the school;s original home3, a decreasing fraction of its or comes out of %openhagen.
/eflections on the concept of security as such, i.e. as interesting in itself and not only a matter of delineation or pre-analytical definition.
•
%oncern ith the issue of possi(le idening as contradictory and political.
•
$ecurity as practice.
•
$elf-reflection! one;s on practice as security analyst is implicated in the politics of security, and as such one face hard ethical dilemmas as security actor.
estdeutscher Oerlag, ?(laden 1HH0, pp. 11 9 1IH# )lric ec, Ris! Societ"4 To(ards a 'e( /odernit", Jondon! $age 1HH2# Miel Oed(y /asmussen, /efle8i&e $ecurity! <'? and +nternational /is $ociety in /illennium, &ol. 0!2, 2001, pp. 2E"-0H# $hlomo riner, Ji&ing in a >orld /is $ociety! /eply to Miel O. /asmussen, in /illennium , &ol. 1!1, 2002, pp. 14H-1I0# MO/ reply in /illennium <# Rygmunt auman, In Searc o$ &olitics , %am(ridge! Polity Press 1HHH# auman, Communit": See!ing Sa$et" in an Insecure World , %am(ridge Polity Press 2001# nthony iddens, /odernit" and Sel$-Identit": Sel$ and Societ" in te 5ate /odern Age, %am(ridge! Polity Press 1HH1# Fran_ois *ald, C+nsurance and /is in Te .oucault E$$ect: Studies in Governmentalit", raham urchell, %olin ordon and Peter Miller eds., %hicago! 'he )ni&ersity of %hicago Press 1HH1, pp. 1H7-210# Fran_ois *ald, 'o +nfinities of /is in rian Massumi ed.3 Te &olitics o$ Ever"da" .ear , Minneapolis and Jondon! )ni&ersity of Minnesota Press 1HH1, pp. 221-E# %laudia radau, eyond ood and *&il! *thics and $ecuriti6ation =Desecuriti6ation 'echniVues, /u(ion e-ournal, Dec 2001! http!==&enus.ci.u.edu.pl=^ru(ion=forum=claudia2.htm # ?le >Y&er, $ecurity! %onceptual istory for international relations, paper presented at +$ and +$ 200. 2E ?ne could also sum up in terms of theorists. May(e! (erystyth! a(ermas, ramsci, %o8. %openhagen! >alt6, $chmitt, ustin and Derrida. Paris! ourdieu, Foucault, >e(er. 27
12
(erystyth! •
idening
•
emancipation
•
social construction of threats# self=other relations
%openhagen! •
securitisation! the political construction of security issues.
•
desecuritisation! :security; is not good (ut at (est a minor e&il, hile most often our aim should (e to limit the rhetoric of security and its accompanying politics of e8ceptions and emergencies.
•
distinguish (eteen securitising actors and referent o(ects.
Paris! •
internal and e8ternal security merge.
•
$ecurity agencies.
•
Pra8is o&er discourse
nd no to the e8planations of all that!
Philosophy, money and institutions s presented a(o&e, this ill (e attempted in terms of three le&els! 1. +ntellectual traditions. 2. 'he organisation of the field. . Practical usages! policy issues and the political agenda. 'he first le&el is almost too easy in this case. +t is o(&ious, that the *uropean de(ates are more :reflecti&ist; or :post-positi&ist; than the merican ones. 'he spectrum of metatheoretical positions pro(a(ly does not differ much (eteen the )$ and *urope and many indi&iduals mo&e (ac and forth3, (ut the median point does. 'herefore, the seemingly similar de(ates, that could (e seen as (eing a(out :constructi&ism meets security studies; on (oth sides, turn out &ery differently. +n )$ security studies, it is a(out a distinct type of mainstream constructi&ism that orients itself toards the canons of science among rationalists, here much (ut far from all3 constructi&ism in *urope (lends in ith more radical positions. ccordingly, the de(ate mostly in International Securit" o&er the role of constructi&ism in security studies2H, turns out to (e a(out Cassessing the importance of ideas in security studies, i.e. ideas and identity concei&ed as &aria(les and udged in strict causal terms. lso the participants e8plicitly engage in la(orious efforts to define a :con&entional;
Michael Desch, G%ulture %lash! ssessing the +mportance of +deas in $ecurity $tudies,G International Securit" , &ol. 2, $ummer 1HHE, pp. 141-70 de(ate in International Securit", &ol. 24!1, $ummer 1HHH, pp. 1"I-1E0# 'ed opf, G'he Promise of %onstructi&ism in +/ 'heory.G International Securit", O.2, $ummer 2H
1HHE, pp. 171-200# Dale %opeland, G'he %onstructi&ist %hallenge to $tructural /ealism! /e&ie *ssay,G International Securit", &ol. 2", Fall 2000, pp. 1E7-212# 'heo Farrell, 5%onstructi&ist $ecurity $tudies! Portrait of a /esearch Program5, International Studies Revie(, 4, 1, 2002, pp. 4H-72.
1
constructi&ism as distinct from a :critical; constructi&ism.0 'his striing contrast in the ela(oration of seemingly similar impulses illustrates the difference in conte8t and normality. 'his meta-theoretical difference in turn is already ell-e8plained (y pre&ious contri(utions to the literature on :sociology of +/; and other ritings on the social sciences. 'he e8planation has many layers including deep ones around the historical constitution of national identities, here Dorothy /oss con&incingly has argued that the merican historical consciousness 9 the ay the merican nation is constructed in time, the millennial (elief in merican e8ceptionalism 9 as ser&ed (est (y naturalist social science and threatened (y historicist approaches.1 (stract and :scientific; social science is therefore a repeated preference in )$, e&en hen this comes in ne forms for each a&e. 'o this can then (e added later inclinations related to the fascination ith technology and progress 'horstein Oe(len# $tanley offmann3. Positi&ist inclinations ere supported also (y :le&el 2X factors related to the formation and delineation of the different social sciences 2. Finally, the %old >ar period strengthened this pattern further due to the social role of +/ and security studies in %old >ar policy 9 and the ensuing funding. 'his (lurs into the second le&el, (ut (efore e continue systematically to this, it is necessary to pause a (it and complicate this simple and familiar story a(out positi&ist mericans &ersus post-Positi&ist *uropeans! 'he to sides differ not only in terms of meta-theory positi&ism=post-positi&ism3 (ut also a(out +/ theory realism or not3 and methodology historical case studies or other methods3. lso, it is necessary to focus on ho security studies differ from +/ in general in the )$ and *urope respecti&ely. /ealism remains much more central in ).$. security studies than it is in (oth general merican +/=+P* +? as ell as +$S type3 and than it is in *uropean security studies. >ithin merican +/, security studies has its distinct st"le. +n security studies as represented primarily (y the ournals International Securit" and Securit" Studies3, the dominant form of research is more historical, less oriented toards formal rational choice than in +?-style +/. 4 'his is not an instance of :traditionalism; a la second de(ate edley ull3 here udgment is seen as integral to research ", (ecause a ournal lie International Securit" is at least as insistent as +? on strict causal and ;positi&ist; social science. 'his shos in the actual pu(lishing record (ut may(e more re&ealingly in places lie the instruction sheet for contri(utors. +t ass a potential author to sum up at least for herself3 her argument in an arro diagram (ecause if this is not possi(le, the argument is not clear yet. 'his implies that an argument necessarily taes the form of propositions a(out cause-effect 0
ere, it pro(a(ly also plays a role, that the field of practiced policy research in the security field is more closely :disciplined; and specialised in the )$. 'herefore there are fe constructi&ists &ery fe radical constructi&ists3, hereas it is possi(le to (e (oth a post-structuralist and a policy researcher and go&ernment ad&isor3 in some *uropean countries partly (ecause of a different game o&er the status of different disciplines, partly simply (ecause of less specialisation=di&ision of la(our in smaller countries3. 1 Dorothy /oss, Te Origins o$ American Social Science, %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press 1HH1. 2 $ee the or of Bohn unnell and others 9 a summary is found on pp. 71f of >Y&er, :'he $ociology;, op.cit. s noted (y se&eral authors, neo3realism has long (een present in general +/ not-specifically-securityoriented3 discussions mostly as a ghost! 'hroughout the 1HE0s and much of the 1HH0s, a &ery large part of theoretical arguments ere ustified as critiVues of neo-realism, (ut to actually find a self-defined neo-realist at an +$ meeting or in the pages of +?, as not that easy. ?(&iously, this meant that neo-realism as influential in shaping de(ates (ut in a much more in-direct ay than ithin security studies, here it remained something lie the orthodo8y. 4 Michael ron, $te&en *. Miller and $eam M. Jynn-Bones eds.3 Rational Coice and Securit" Studies: Stepen Walt and is Critics, %am(ridge! M+' Press, 2000. %f. also the statistics in >Y&er, ;'he $ociology of a
14
relations among a fe factors and not e.g. riting structured history, deconstructi&e inter&entions or normati&e +/3. 'he de(ate (eteen offensi&e and defensi&e realism is illustrati&e of this! it is phrased in terms of general +/ theories, and of a ind here clear (eha&ioral hypotheses can relati&ely easily (e deduced, and thus in-depth, historical case-studies is a fruitful method to e&aluate the competing theories 9 and to refine them (y modifications, complications and often com(inations. 'he preference is -- in contrast to +? 9 for not too a(stract and arcane theories and a relati&ely clear discussion of hat state (eha&iour to e8pect. )sually, the immediate policy rele&ance is clearer 9 and in recent years especially! hat should e e8pect of other great poers and maor regional poers >hen ill they turn aggressi&e and e8pansionist, and hen ill they (e status Vuo poers +n principle, the offensi&e=defensi&e realism de(ate could also (e the (asis of ho to thin a(out the current )$ position, (ut interestingly this is relati&ely rareI and )$ policy is more often lined to the de(ate a(out the role of poer empire3 &s. institutions and soft poer3 in international order. enerally, the preferred :style; is cause-effect noledge a(out security rele&ant issues (ased on historical case studies or more rarely! large-n data3. +t is not possi(le to e8plain patterns of security theory purely at the le&el of intellectual traditions. s e ha&e seen a(o&e, Vuestions a(out organisation and usage ha&e already started to creep into this first part of the discussion, and in order to get to grips ith these layers, lets first 6oom in a (it more systematically at the differences in form (eteen security theory in the to settings i.e. condense the results of the pre&ious section3 and from there try to distil out the elements of an e8planation, (ecause to start from the e8planatory factors, there are too many options for here to start 9 funding patterns, institutions, linguistic di&ides 9 and it is therefore more fruitful to or (acards from patterns that get gradually clearer!
Contrast The US
Concept o! security not interesting (only delineation$
Concept o! security as continued centre o! re!lection
*eneral %R theories applied and competing
Speci!ic theorising about security
arrow military !ocus
Broad econpolitical approach
Rationalist theories but in so!t #ersion o!ten using historical case studies
Degrees o! re!lecti#ism/constructi#ism
*eneral re!lection as part o! political process in society on !undamental )uestions o! sel! de!inition and sel!shaping-
I
Europe
%nstrumental knowledge to assist in handling policy tasks
$ee some elements of this in Mearsheimer,
Te Traged", op.cit. 1"
?ne maor difference is that on the )$ side, re$lections on te concept o$ securit" pla" no integrated role in researc. $uch considerations are at most in&ol&ed in delineating the field and there(y locating the Vuestions a(out hich then to gain empirical, causal, historical and theoretical noledge.7 +f an article is defined as security analysis, this ill typically mean that at most the reflection on this status consists in defining security studies as (eing a(out e.g. Cte stud" o$ te treat, use and control o$ militar" $orc eE and therefore a theoreticalempirical study of causes of ar is rele&ant or the strategic use of sanctions might ith a little more difficulty (e ustified too# the concept of security is not present in te anal"sis as such. +n the *uropean de(ates, Vuestions a(out the concept of security (ecame the launching pad for a general attention to the self-reflecti&e nature of the discipline, i.e. that the discipline not only studied security, (ut it also had its on concepts of security and there(y its on security practices. :Doing security; therefore implied to reflect on the practice of speaing in the name of this concept. 'his pointed toards a general attention to the close connections (eteen su(-3discipline, theory, concept and the studied o(ect all called something lie or ith ;security;3. partly related, second difference is that in *urope, a particular de(ate emerged that as organised at first (itin and *ecause o$ te particular 3uestions related to securit", (ut hich increasingly influences more general +/ de(ates. +n the )$, influences clearly ent the opposite ay! the theoretical positions ithin security studies deri&e from general +/ de(ates. 'his is pro(a(ly most easily seen in the case of the de(ate on constructi&ism. 'he main sal&o from the constructi&ists, the Nat6enstein &olume H, as launched e8plicitly as a mo&e in a general +/ de(ate here constructi&ists found that it as time to pro&e their orth on the home ground of realism! security. Most of the contri(utors ere not primarily oring in fields or institutions traditionally seen as ;security;. +n contrast to earlier periods such as ;the golden age; of security studies in the 1H"0s and 1HI0s, it is today not particular challenges, needs or de(ates ithin security studies that moti&ate theory de&elopment. 40 +n the conte8t of merican +/, this change is &alued. +t is generally assumed to (e a sign of maturity to get aay from particular theories and de(ates in su(-fields and instead de&elop general theories that are in turn applied to different fields lie *uropean integration, international security or 'his is particularly clear in Te Culture o$ 'ational Securit" , here Nat6enstein C+ntroduction, op.cit, pp. 7-113 argues the strategic rationale of employing a narro concept of security in com(ination ith the ne approaches, (ecause 9 again 9 if you can (eat the traditionalists in their home field, it is e&idently easy later to transfer this gain to the ne fields that are already home turf for the ne approaches. +mplicitly, the Vuestion of concepts of security is here reduced to a Vuestion of :issues;, hereas the meta-criticism raised (y %ritical $ecurity $tudies, the %openhagen $chool and others does not register. 'his is the approach to the concept that frames the (oo it returns on pp. "2-"2E3. lmost as an aside, Bepperson et al Corld to notherG, International Securit", Ool. 2I, alt :'he /enaissance of $ecurity $tudies;, International Studies %uarterl y, ", 1HH13, p. 212. 'he de(ate on ide &s. narro concept had much merican participation in the early phase, (ut it is idely seen as dealt ith (y no. Bessica Mathes, 5/edefining $ecurity5, .oreign A$$airs, IE!2 1HEH3# /ichard )llman, G/edefining $ecurityG, +nternational $ecurity E, 1 1HE3!12H-1". Famous anti-ideners include $tephen >alt G'he /enaissance; op.cit. and 9 through a mostly different route 9 Daniel Deudney, G'he %ase gainst Jining *n&ironmental Degradation and ar, World &olitics, &ol 4E, ?ct 1HH", pp. 117-141. 7
1I
trade disputes.41 'he ne *uropean theories de&eloped in relation to pu(lic discussions a(out security and attempts to de&elop specific theorising for this purpose. 'hus, these theoretical de&elopments ere the product of complicated, personal processes of political and theoretical choices and settling or coming to terms ith one;s role in-(eteen academia, e8pertise and citi6en=pu(lic intellectual.42 +t is often stated that +/ research in the )$ is more closely connected to policy than in *urope4, (ut this is only partly true! /ele&ant research is more systematically promoted through &arious channels in the )$, and Vuite large su(-systems primarily thintans3 are &ery directly lined to policy. lso academic ournals lie International Securit" ha&e a more implicit policy orientation e8pressed (y freVuent discussions in terms of hat :e; the )$3 should do, here eVui&alents are much more rarely found in any *uropean academic ournal. oe&er, the disconnect (eteen large parts of academic +/ and policy circles is also &ery significant in the )$, and *uropean research typically has a (roader concept of politics, not only as policy ad&ice. 'hese represent different understandings of :rele&ance;. 'he (ottom-line on this point is that the *uropean theories de&eloped as an integral part of struggling ith security issues, the merican ones much more detached as part of academic de(ates (eteen &arious e8planatory theories. 'his in turn is in the merican optic the most policy rele&ant, (ecause the role of the analyst is to pro&ide the rele&ant noledge of causeeffect relations that ena(le the optimal policy decision. Politics and noledge are not seen as that separate in the *uropean conte8t, here the researcher as participant in the process thins more in terms of ethics, dilemmas and choices. s e ha&e no 6oomed in on the rele&ant form of noledge in the to situations and the relationship (eteen researcher and policy-maers as to important :intermediate &aria(les;, it (ecomes possi(le to thin more systematically a(out plausi(le e8planations of the present pattern. Follo the money, is often a good ad&ice, and funding patterns are pro(a(ly an important part of the story. nother maor part is the structure in hich research is organised along the spectrum from policy oriented thin tans to i&ory toer academe. 'he )$ seems to (e mared (y @hat seems to me to (eA a relati&ely strong di&ision of la(our (eteen uni&ersities and thin tans. 44 'heoretical research is the tas of uni&ersity researchers, of hich some try to (e policy rele&ant, also do policy pieces and direct their research toards those Vuestions that are meaningful for ey policy Vuestions. 'hin tans, on the other hand, seem to (e under a hea&y pressure for doing e8tremely practical, straightforard research and researchers there usually do not stray too much into theorising, not e&en in the application=utilisation sense. 'his pattern does not create the distance=interaction tension hich in the *uropean case has often (een the room for inno&ation, i.e. (eyond the grip of the discipline and its constant :grand de(ate; repetitions and yet enough in contact to engage and influence. 'his is closely lined to patterns of funding, here in the )$ relati&ely +n relation to *uropean integration studies, this argument is made forcefully (y ndre Mora&csi, Te Coice $or Europe: Social &urpose and State &o(er $rom /essina to /aastrict , ,
Press1HHE, pp. QQ. 42 Nen ooth, $ecurity and $elf, op.cit.# Bef uysmans, 5Defining social constructi&ism;, op.cit. 4
17
much is distri(uted &ia competiti&e grants. 'he indi&idual researcher is therefore mainly e8posed to the pressure of a large :maret; and eaer direct social presence pressure from smaller institutions. +.e. researchers from all o&er compete in relation to general criteria for hat is rele&ant and interesting, hereas this ind of research at the inter-face of theory and security policy rele&ance is less located in small and medium si6ed may(e ad hoc3 institutions, here in *urope the (alance is more toards the latter. @+ do not ha&e data on this, and + ha&e to in&estigate it in more detail to see if this actually holds 9 so far it is Vuite impressionistic.A +n *urope, there seems to (e much more of a continuum of academically oriented research institutes that are ne&ertheless not part of a uni&ersity. Places lie the Ma8 Planc +nstitute in ermany and %*/+ in France, (ut may(e in the present conte8t, most importantly the role of peace researc4". +t as clearly more than influential in relation to %openhagen and especially rele&ant for Nen ooth in (erystyth, (ut much less so in Paris. ere, hoe&er, the French tradition for pu(lic intellectuals plus the &ery different relationship (eteen +/ and other disciplines, i.e. the closeness to sociology, e8plains a lot instead. +nstitutes such as the peace research institutes ere in-(eteen in the sense of (eing policy oriented (ut not a-theoretical. +t is of course a long story ho peace research changed ith different intellectual and policy frames o&er the decades and its strengths and eanesses ere different in different periods, 4I (ut especially in relation to the 1HE0s and early 1HH0s, it is interesting ho scholars ho ere clearly relating to +/ as their discipline, ored differently hen relating also to peace research 9 either (ecause employed there or (ecause acti&e e.g. in mo&ements lie Pugash. More than peace research as a grand proect, this pro(a(ly has to do ith the sociological micro-mechanisms, the social con&entions ithin peace research institutes 9 roughly hat ind of argument you can use toards each other here Vuestions of rele&ance and political implications are a legitimate part of the game in a ay hich is not common ithin a political science=+/ department, hile on the other hand theory is part of the picture in a ay that differs from esta(lishment thin tans. +t is not that peace research in itself and ith its on rules and self-understandings ensure ideal conditions for intellectual inno&ation, often the contrary. ut the location of indi&iduals at the interface of peace research and +/ is often producti&e. >hen people ith a disciplinary +/ reference de&elop ne ideas hile located in peace research or some other inter-disciplinary conte8t, +/ scholars are inclined to credit this to +/ and see the alternati&e affiliation as coincidence. ut hen it (ecomes common that a considera(le part of the ne ideas come from people in odd locations, it (ecomes uncon&incing to rite this off as coincidence, and the mechanism might ha&e more to do ith the ay disciplinary mechanisms or ithin +/ as a discipline and therefore a need for distance. 'otally trans-disciplinary institutes that refuse all relationship to the old disciplines and insist on only the su(ect matter easily (ecome too instrumental and ithout a (asis for self-reflection, (ut the situation ith dual disciplinary definitions can (e helpful in (oth stimulating ne thining and deli&ering a disciplinary selfreference ithin hich to e8press these ideas. 'he third le&el of an e8planation then is a(out the inds of policy challenge that the different research en&ironments are e8posed to. ?ne can not fully and solely e8plain from there. 'he 4"
?le >Y&er, C'he $trange $uccesses of $candina&ian Peace /esearch! >hy the inter-tined disciplines of Peace /esearch and +nternational /elations de&elop differently in the )$, $candina&ia and other parts of *urope, Presentation at the conference C+n $earch of Peace in the 'enty-First %entury in $eoul, Banuary 2", 2000, organised (y the Norean Peace /esearch ssociation the Norean ar is hat e mae of it;! hen peace research meets constructi&ism in +nternational /elations and u66ini=Bung C%openhagen Peace /esearch as ell as other chapters3 in u66ini and Bung eds3, Contemporar" Securit" Anal"sis and Copenagen &eace Researc, Jondon! /outledge 2004. 4I >Y&er, C'he $trange $uccesses, op.cit.
1E
first and second le&el ha&e carried much of the long-term effects, hereas the third is more time-(ound, (ut it is a more recent re-enforcement of patterns, and it is orth a thought to hat e8tent e&en these :critical; *uropean approaches are helped along (y (eing politically :useful; and :rele&ant;.
'he geopolitics of >estern security theories t least in relation to future de&elopments, it ill help to ha&e a loo at the policy challenges that face mericans and *uropeans respecti&ely. 'he rele&ant Vuestions are not at the le&el of the short term political situation or a specific political administration or go&ernment 9 it should (e larger patterns. 'his ill here (e attempted through a orld politics analysis deri&ed from Regional Securit" Comple Teor" /$%'3.47 regional securit" comple as originally defined (y arry u6an as C group of states hose security pro(lems are so closely intertined that they can not meaningfully (e understood independently of each other. 4E More recently, it has (een reformulated in securitisation terminology as C set of units hose maor processes of securitisation, desecuritisation, or (oth are so interlined that their security pro(lems cannot reasona(ly (e analysed or resol&ed apart from one another. 4H 'he (asic idea is to loo at the regional le&el formations that are often the le&el hich mediates glo(al and domestic le&el factors. 'he security of the orld so to say falls in chuns.
'his is clearly a non-merican theory, (ecause the )$ as the glo(al le&el actor par e8cellence is prone to see unified glo(al interpretations of the orld 9 after :the %old >ar; comes :the %lash of %i&ilisations;, :unipolarity;, :the ar on terror; or :glo(ali6ation;. oe&er, such neat summaries of orld politics ill increasingly fail as the orld (ecomes more di&ersified 9 there ill (e no alternati&e to taing the detour around the di$$erent stories from different regions here security increasingly unfolds in different forms in terms of the dominant units, the main sectors and the nature of security issues. $een from all other places than the )$ 9 and to some e8tent a fe other glo(al poers 9 the main security issues ill (e regional. fter all, it is not so surprising that most often the main threats come from neigh(ours or other local forces, (ecause most threats tra&el more easily o&er short than o&er long distances, and only great poers transcend this logic to some e8tent, and e&en they ha&e to grasp the regional dynamics (ecause otherise they do not no ho to engage other actors ho are tied to this logic. maor claim of the theory is that the interaction (eteen glo(al and regional actors happens on terms set (y the regional actors to a much larger e8tent than e8pected (y +/ theories that usually pri&ilege the top-don perspecti&e. +n contrast to the emphasis on glo(al poers in understanding e.g. Middle *ast politics, it is usually the lines of conflict generated (y actors in the region that open the possi(ility of penetration (y e8ternal actors 9 and then typically along lines defined (y indigenous conflicts. 'he different /$%s differ along &arious important dimensions. 'he (asic pattern is relativel" sta*le. 'here are a limited num(er of - therefore significant - e8ternal changes of /$%s (oundaries3 9 hich is Vuite fortunate, (ecause the theory ould (e less informati&e if the 47
'hus it is an e8planation (ased on a %openhagen $chool interpretation of the orld, hich implies a certain element of circularity or may(e a fractal format, here a pattern re-appears at different le&els. 'he different theories 9 ith special attention to )$-*uropean differences 9 are partly e8plained (y a security analysis carried out (y one of the *uropean theories, a theory hich is not only *uropean in origin, (ut here the *uropean or at least the non-mericanness3 can (e clearly discerned in the theory itself. $ome might see this element in the structure of the paper as pro(lematic, others as una&oida(le and some may(e e&en as a merit. 4E u6an, &eople, States and .ear , \ 4H u6an et al, Securit": A 'e( .rame(or! , p. -- and u6an L >Y&er, Regions and &o(ers , op.cit., p. --
1H
/$%s here constantly mutating, or for that matter is they ere totally static. /egarding internal order, it is striing that Vuite a lot of /$%s are more or less centred , rather than accord ith the common +/ e8pectation of (alancing systems of so&ereign eVuality. %rucial de&elopments are not parallel ! the regions (ecome :increasingly regional; in terms of form, i.e. security :is a(out; different things, ha&e different actors, etc. +n most regions the analysis point to one or a fe open 3uestions that ill determine their future course. %harting the total securit" map has to co&er three areas! glo(al le&el, regional le&el, glo(al-regional interplay. oe&er, e&en such an analysis has to ha&e some conception of the glo(al le&el. ccording to /$%', the glo(al structure is C 1 4 regions C. 'he de(ate on glo(al structure has (ecome constricted (y a simplistic conception of polarity that stems from the failure to distinguish regional from glo(al that deri&e from the *urocentric period hen the glo(al poers ere also the dominant poers of one region, the *uropean. regional (alance of poer as also the glo(al, and polarity as seemingly a simple concept. 'he discipline did not reflect systematically on the meaning of the shift of terminology from great poer to super poer 9 as it ust normal inflation, or ust a (igger great poer 9 and the implications of a shift to glo(al le&el polarity ere not ored out. 'herefore, today, e ha&e a tendency to discuss polarity as either multipolar or unipolar and e&eryone e8cluded from that le&el are :regional poers;, (ut surely that ill not do. 'he )$ is not dominant enough to constitute unipolarity, and especially not, if that is to imply that e.g. %hina and the *) are purely :regional poers;.
as glo(al reach and all-round poer %reat powers! 4 %hina, /ussia, *), Bapan3
Potential super poer. +ncluded in considerations a(out glo(al poer possi(le coalitions3. as influence (eyond its on region. &egions ith regional poers! currently $$.
'he poers in each region constituti&e of regional polarity are regional powers one poer is so much more eVual than e&eryone else. +t is necessary to distinguish (eteen super poers and great poers."0 super poer has glo(al reach and poer in all sectors 9 and there is only one such today, the )$. ut there are four great poers, %hina, /ussia, *), Bapan. 'hey are contemplated as potential or recent3 super poers, they ha&e influence (eyond their on region e&en if not in all others, and first of all 9 the defining criteria 9 they are included in considerations a(out glo(al poer (y other poers e.g. in terms of possi(le coalitions3. 'he structure among these to inds of poers mae up the glo(al poer structure, and therefore it is today C14 and the most liely alternati&e is pro(a(ly neither (i- nor multipolarity (ut C08, a non-superpoer structure coming a(out most liely (y )$ a(dication from a glo(al role3. "1 Finally, :regional poers; are all those ho define the u6an and >Y&er, Regions and &o(ers, chapter 2 and in more de&eloped in u6an, Te 0nited States and te Great &o(ers, forthcoming Polity Press. "0
"1
untington;s concept of :uni-multipolarity; captures some of the same dynamics of :14;! it is not only a mi8 of unipolarity and multipolarity, (ut a &ery particular one! the unipole thins the system is unipolar and acts accordingly, hile the great poers thins it is multipolar 9 or surely! should (e 9 and they act accordingly. ?(&iously, this promises trou(le
20
polarity structure of a /$%, (e that as more in a (i- or multipolar region.
te central poer in a centred comple8 or as the to or
'he )$ position is clearly uniVue and it defines a Vuite particular agenda. 'he )$ is not a mem*er of other regions than
?le >Y&er, C'he *) as a security actor! reflections from a pessimistic constructi&ist on post-so&ereign security orders in Morten Nelstrup and Michael %. >illiams eds.3 International Relations Teor" and te &olitics o$ European Integration: &o(er, securit" and communit", Jondon! /outledge 2000, pp. 2"0-H4# 5+nsecurity, $ecurity and security in the >est *uropean ar %ommunity5 in *manuel dler L Michael arnett eds.3 $ecurity %ommunities, %am(ridge )ni&ersity Press 1HHE, pp. IH-11E# :*urope;s 'hree *mpires! >atsonian interpretation of post-all *uropean security;, in /ic Fan and Beremy Jarins eds.3, International Societ" A$ter te Cold War: Anarc" and Order Reconsidered , pu(lished (y /acmillan in association ith /illennium 3 1HHI, pp. 220-I0. /o(ert Nagan, Poer and >eaness, &olic" Revie(, Bune L Buly 2002, Y&er, :>idening the %oncept of $ecurity -- nd >idening the tlantic; in o uldt, $&en /ud(erg L *lisa(eth Da&idson eds.3 Te Transatlantic 5in!: Strategic =ear*oo! >??>, $tocholm! $edish
21
*uropean anti-unipolarism. ecause the security pro(lems in *urope are uncon&entional, it loos from the )$ 9 here security is alays lined to military concerns 9 lie the *uropeans are ithout security pro(lems and therefore it is a Vuestion only if they ill face up to the ne riss (eyond *urope or insist on their *uropean non-security oriented :paradise;. *urope is not ust a sloer part of the >est. +t has a different ind of securit" pro*lems, dri&en internally and internal=e8ternal lie all other regions. 'his ill continue to disappoint the )$ 'he )$ genda is to protect the position as te one super poer, hich means to a&oid ;peer competitors; and define a glo(al agenda, hich eeps regional agendas in chec. 'o securitise terror is therefore a ey instrument. 'he su(stance of noledge needed especially (efore H113 as first of! >hen ill regional poers turn aggressi&e $econd pro(a(ly came! o ill our poer or %an e (uild a sta(le empire ?n poer alone3 ?ne should may(e e8pect more interest in terror as such, its roots. ut ith the outloo (efore H11, it as understanda(le that the de(ate on ho poers decide hether to (e status Vuo seeers or e8pansionist ould (e central, i.e. the offensi&e=defensi&e realism de(ate. From a perspecti&e of top-dog and potential inter&enor in &arious parts of the orld, the $orm of noledge needs is empirical noledge through case studies and cumulati&e, general theory. 'he concept of security ser&es only to delineate the field of empirical noledge.3 'his in contrast to the *uropean agenda, here there is a need to reflect and select among &arious claims a(out security status for &arious issues. ?n the one hand, one needs a cautious idening and securitisation=desecuritisation constellation in order to create *urope and hold it together, (ut on the other hand as a poer that atches 14 from (elo, there is also an interest in a&oiding to (e controlled (y a glo(al agenda, i.e. to ant less securitisation. 'he concept of security is therefore at the centre of reflection - and self-reflection, hich in&ol&es then the role of the security analyst, (ecause security (ecomes defined as an inherently pro(lematic practice.
22
nd the rest of the orld 'he theme of this paper is not the glo(al situation and + do not intend to pretend any general e8pertise or a total o&er&ie of the situation in the hole orld. oe&er, + ill try in this final section to reflect (riefly on the rele&ance of the a(o&e categories and e8planations as de&eloped for the )$-*uropean differences. Do they e8plain the situation in :the periphery; regarding the amount and character of security theory 9 and hat ould (e the most rele&ant and realistic forms of security theory to emerge outside the core >hat a(out the first le&el! +ntellectual, meta-theoretical and theoretical traditions +t is o(&iously impossi(le to summarise in a fe paragraphs hat general intellectual outloos are influential for the different segments of the maor part of the orld. ?ne ay to get closer to an anser is to merge this ith a discussion of the second layer, organisation. s pointed out (y most of the sur&eys done of the state of +/ in :the third orld;, a maor feature is the dominance in many places of a relati&ely narro security agenda. $ome pressing policy challenge 9 +ndia-Paistan conflict for instance 9 creates a demand for policy research deli&ering classical strategic studies or of utility for this strategic relationship. +n a situation of limited funds for research, it has often (een the situation, that more :lu8ury; concerns ere marginalised in the more targeted part of research (y hard core strategic studies, hich has meant until recently a dominance of :lo theory;, :common sense; realism."4 $imultaneously, on the uni&ersity side, the situation as determined (y the status of +/ as an imported discipline and therefore a predominance of a copy format for +/ theorising. 'his has (een most systematically shon (y Nal olsti 20 years ago"", (ut more recent case and country studies generally confirm the rele&ance of this o(ser&ation."I
3hs, retrning to the <estion of intellectal orientations$ 2bviosly there are po+erfl philosophical traditions in many contries and regions that are at variance +ith US style positivism, =st thin# of strong cases li#e Indian philosophy or Islamic thin#ing abot international affairs 3he implications of sch traditions for international thoght +as occasionally toched pon, bt this basically, nfolded separately in other departments and instittions, +hile IR remained 0estern oriented and defined by 0estern theories Several contries have +itnessed more recent attempts to develop self-consciosly independent >schools? +ithin IR theory 2bviosly it has been a strange e)perience for Chinese "4
$tephen %han, C%ultural and Jinguistic /eductionism and a est! frica and the *ast in +nternational /elations 'heory, (oth reprinted in %han;s To(ards a /ulticultural Rosamon &aradigm in International Relations: Collected Essa"s, 'ampere /esearch /eport no. 74, 1HHI. "" N. B. olsti , Te #ividing #iscipline: egemon" and #iversit" in International Teor", oston! llen L )nin 1HE"# -"I iroshi Momose, C+nternational $tudies as an *ducational $ystem in Postar Bapan 9 an interpretation, <.D.# Oinay Numar Malhotra and le8ander . $ergounin, Teories and Approaces to International Relations, orld of Pu(lishing in %ontemporary +nternational /elations, International Studies &erspectives, &ol. 1!, Dec. 2000, pp. 2EH-0.
2
scholars to hear abot >schools? named after still more marginal places li#e 4ngland or Copenhagen, +hile there +as still no generally recognised >Chinese school? 5@ 3here is a clear trend at present to+ards developing in still more places distinct approaches that are both related to the IR tradition 6as defined by the centre7 and dra+ing on ni<e cltral and political conditions So far, ho+ever, this has mostly been <ite >top do+n? in terms of +hat schools to foster : sometimes for almost representational or prestige reasons : +hereas actal +or# on specific secrity isses have mostly happened +ith in the traditional policy oriented circles and these have been dominated in many ma=or contries by old-style strategic stdies Much of the pressure for change out of this pattern has come from policy 9 or may(e more! politics 9 reflections a(out rele&ance. s argued (y se&eral of the papers in our series of panels at this +$ conference, e are faced ith a striing misfit (eteen +/ theory and third orld reality. "E 'he discipline;s focus on so&ereignty, inter-state ar and a(stract theory is confronted (y a reality of multiple o&er-lapping political and social systems, conflicts that are primarily internal or transnational and a need to integrate e&eryday life and +/ noledge."H 'he traditional concept of security is o(&iously Vuestioned in this process too.
Ao+ever, it is less clear +hat #ind of secrity stdies is gro+ing ot of this Some has lin#ed p to : and indeed contribted to Critical Security Studies nd indeed there shold seem to be many connectors here, notably the focs on the actal lives of people, and the organising concept of emancipationB" s noted (y Donald B. Puchala, Cy far the most prominent, and indeed the most poerful, theme in estern narrati&e today is Emancipation.I1 'his should imply Vuite a good fit ith %$$. ?n the other hand, the implicit opening for all inds of idening is often pro(lematic in situations here security arguments are often mis3used (y rulers and elites for domestic purposes. 'here is a need to (e a(le to counter this, hich should point to a %openhagen $chool attitude to securitisation and desecuritisation. *specially in Jatin merica, there is a ide-spread consciousness a(out the ays security rhetoric has (een used repressi&ely in the past, and therefore a ariness a(out opening a door for this (y helping to iden the concept of security. I2 :%hinese school; paper \.# see also erald %han, Cinese &erspectives on International Relations: A .rame(or! $or Anal"sis, Macmillan 1HHH, nota(ly ch. 10 on C'oards and +/ theory ith %hinese "7
%haracteristics. "E $tephanie . orld! n ?8ymeron in orld and $ecurity $tudies in Nrause=>illiams, Critical Securit" Studies, op.cit., pp. 2HH-2E# rlene . 'icner, C$eeing +/ Differently! estern security and +/ theories for sian security, see Muthiah lagappa ed3, Asian Securit" &ractice: /aterial and Ideational In$luences, $tanford )ni&esrity Press 1HHE, especially lagappa;s on chapter a (oo in the (oo3! pp. 1-111 and I11700. "H For the latter point, see particularly 'icner, C$eeing +/ Differently, op.cit. I0 yoo( and charya in Nrause=>illiams# charya;s (oo# I1 Donald B. Puchala, C$ome estern Perspecti&es on +nternational /elations, )ournal o$ &eace Researc, &ol. 4!2, 1HH7, pp. 12H-14, Vuoting p. 11. I2 . Pope tins, 5atin America and Te Cari**ean in te International $ystem, 4th edn, >est&ie 1HHH, p. 10# /ut Diamint, CDemilitari6ation and the $ecurity genda, )ni&ersidad 'orcuato Di 'ella uenos ires, 0niversidad Torcuato #i Tella Wor!ing &aper , $eptem(er 11-12, 2000# Y&er, C$ecurity agendas old and ne, and ho to sur&i&e them, paper prepared for the>orshop on C'he 'raditional and the orld, )ni&ersidad 'orcuato Di 'ella uenos ires, $eptem(er 11-12, 0niversidad Torcuato #i Tella Wor!ing &aper, 2000#
24
More interesting than these attempts to e8port *uropean security schools to the third orld is the Vuestion hether the conditions are ripe for indigenous security theory 9 cf. the reflections a(o&e a(out the contrast (eteen )$ and *urope and the role of specific inds of research institutions and en&ironments 9 and hat inds of theorising are emerging in relation to the specific inds of challenge facing non->estern countries. @nd this, + ill surely (e much (etter a(le to rite some lines a(out after our panels and the many promising papers, + loo forard to reading.A
$ecurity $tudies (eteen core and periphery 9 (eteen poer and peace 'his paper has shon ho a *uropean :family; of security theories has emerged that differs Vuite maredly from the form of security theory that dominates in the )$. 'his has (een e8plained partly from the general intellectual climate ith more hospitality to historicist and reflecti&ist approaches, partly from the institutional and financial structure ith more room for institutes in-(eteen full policy orientation and clean uni&ersity theory. Partly dri&en (y the specific policy challenges of the *uropean situation, and ena(led (y the institutional set up, $orms of noledge are deemed rele&ant that are &ery different from hat counts as noledge in the )$. +n the latter case, it is primarily generalisations a(out cause-effect relationships &alidated (y historical case studies, hereas the *uropean security theory are much more part of the ethico-political dilemmas related to reflection and self-reflection around the inherently contradictory and pro(lematic concept of security. ?ne, may(e o&erly elegant, conclusion could (e esta(lished (y lining (ac to an old u6an article from 1HE4I! CPeace, Poer, and $ecurity! %ontending %oncepts in the $tudy of +nternational /elationsG. ere, u6an argued, that the discipline of +/ had (een e8cessi&ely dri&en 9 and torn 9 (y the e8treme concepts of poer and peace, (oth maing the condition of anarchy a too e8treme and (lac-(o8ed factor! either an a(solute condition to surrender to and play circular games of poer3 or a condition to (e remo&ed (efore any meaningful aims could (e set peace3. gainst this u6an posited the possi(ility of degrees of anarchy mature and immature3 and a policy and theorising of security as the most fruitful agenda. ringing this rather a(stract and general argument into historical and geographical specificity could lead us to this conclusion a(out the differences (eteen theorising in the )$, *urope and the non->estern Xperiphery;! 'he :guiding stars; differ! +n the )$, poer is increasingly3 the measure that shapes policy hether the o&erhelming )$ position of poer is a possi(le source of order, is a ey discussion and has (ecome the panacea for maor parts of the )$ research community3# in the :periphery; it is peace 9 not that it is at hand, (ut narro security is often seen as unrealistic, (ecause un-sta(le, and only ith a realisation of (roader and deeper aims 9 peace 9 can actual security (e realised. ?nly in *urope, the concept of security in all its contradictory character ors ell as a parado8ical guiding star
>ord %ount! 10.0I http!==.utdt.edu=cei=papers=papersseguridad=paper>ae&er.PDF. I arry u6an, CPeace, Poer, and $ecurity! %ontending %oncepts in the $tudy of +nternational /elationsG, )ournal o$ &eace Researc, 2123, 1HE4, pp. 10H-2".
2"
2I
