"Re-Redefining" International Securing: Bringing Intent Back In

"Re-Redefining" International Securing: Bringing Intent Back In

University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies Josef Korbel School of International Studies Summer 2012 "Re-redefining" International Securing: Bringing Intent Back In Nicholas D. Anderson Georgetown University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies Part of the International and Area Studies Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas D. Anderson, "Re-redefining" International Securing: Bringing Intent Back In,” Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies 4 (Summer 2012): 27-47. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. "Re-redefining" International Securing: Bringing Intent Back In This article is available at Digital Commons @ DU: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies/6 “Re-redefining” International Security BRINGING INTENT BACK IN NICHOLAS D. ANDERSON Georgetown University M.A., Security Studies The tectonic geopolitical shifts that have taken place since the end of the Cold War have led many to put forth a need to rethink and revise the concept of international security. The traditional definition, they assert, is no longer sufficient in the face of the modern era’s most pressing security issues and threats. What are and will be the distinguishing features of international security problems? What should be considered an international security issue, and what should not? How can “international security” or “international security issue” be defined to allow academics and policymakers to most capably think about and deal with the world they face? Here it is argued that while there is no doubt that a revision of the traditional notion of security is in order, it would be wise to avoid excessive expansion of the concept. It is also argued that the most appropriate definition of an international security threat is one that retains the all-important aspect of human agency. Over-broadening of the concept will only lead to a variety of problems for theory and policy in the field of international security.1 The seismic geopolitical shifts that have taken place since the end of the Cold War and the panoply of threats that have ridden in on the most recent wave of globalization have led many to challenge the way we think about security (Baldwin 1995, 118; Buzan 1984, 109; Mathews 1989, 162). Post-World War II definitions, assumptions, and security institutions, they assert, are no longer sufficient to deal with the modern world’s most pressing security problems. They argue that in order to face the problems of the twenty-first century, we need a more comprehensive definition of security—one that encompasses the increasing number of threats to an increasing number of actors. These calls from prominent voices in the field lead to several critical questions: What are and will be the distinguishing features of international security problems in the world today and in the future? What should be considered an international security problem, and what should not? How can “international security” or “international 1 The author can be contacted at [email protected]. The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies - Summer 2012, Volume 4 security problem” be defined in a way that allows academics and policymakers to most capably think about and deal with the threats of the modern era? This study argues that although a revision of the traditional, state-centric, militarily-oriented, and externally- focused definition of security is no doubt an order, it would be wise to avoid excessive expansion of the concept. Along with these necessary conceptual revisions, I argue that the most appropriate definition of an international security threat retains the all-important aspect of human agency or intent. Over-broadening of the concept will lead only to a variety of problems for theory and policy in the field of international security. To make this argument, I first examine some of the major changes in the twenty- first century international security arena. I then trace the evolution of the concept of “security,” from the Cold War to today. I follow up with a look at some of the implications this new thinking on international security as a concept will have for both international relations theory and security studies as academic disciplines, and for the practice of foreign and security policy. I then attempt to “re-redefine” the concept, bringing the crucial aspects of agency and intentionality back into the definition. The study concludes with some of the broader implications of these arguments for international security theory and policy, both today and tomorrow. The Post-Cold War World It is difficult to deny that the sweeping changes wrought since the end of the Cold War have altered, and will continue to alter, the global geopolitical landscape. Conventional, “Great Power” warfare appears in precipitous decline. Global civil society seems to be on the rise. In today’s world, it is the international economy that matters most. Of these vast and far-reaching shifts, four stand out as fundamental. The first is globalization, a notoriously slippery concept that requires elaboration. For our purposes here, globalization is defined as the “widening, deepening, and speeding up” of economic, political, and social interconnectedness among individuals, groups, organizations, states, and other important actors in the international system (Naím 2009, 28; Brown 2008, 45). Globalization is largely a technology-driven phenomenon—the rapid rate of technological change has facilitated this explosion of connection across the globe (Naím 2009, 29). ] 28 The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies - Summer 2012, Volume 4 The definition outlined above consists of three primary aspects: the economic, the political, and the social. For one, globalization has been defined by a rapid expansion of global economic interconnectedness, with trade, investment, global production, and international aid bringing states, organizations, firms, and individuals closer together than ever before. And while some argue this is a positive force for peace (Brooks 1999; Koo 2009), others are less convinced (Barbieri 1996; Barbieri and Schneider 1999; Gasiorowski 1986; Rowe 2005). Politics is globalized as well, with a rapid proliferation of intergovernmental organizations—going from just thirty-seven in 1909 to nearly 1,000 conventional and non-conventional organizations today (Kegley jr. and Banton, 2012).2 Here too, there are those who argue that such institutions reduce the risk of conflict (Axelrod 2006; Ikenberry 2009; Keohane 2005; Nye 2011, 215-217), and those who argue that they are epiphenomenal; mere “reflection[s] of the distribution of power” (Mearsheimer 1994/95, 7). Finally there are the social aspects of globalization. The world’s individuals have been brought closer together through travel, trade, academic exchange, and the explosive growth of transnational nongovernmental organizations. Similarly here, while some argue such expansion will lead to greater global harmony (Kaldor 2003), others see it promising only greater friction (Barber 1992; Huntington 1993; Lieber and Weisberg 2002). While the world has experienced globalization in the past, the current phase is unique in the rapidity with which economic liberalization, communication, and integration are taking place (Wolf 2001). Some states, such as Belgium and Singapore, have positioned themselves to benefit immensely from this trend. While others, such as Burma and Niger, are being quickly left behind (KOF 2010). The second great shift is what Fareed Zakaria (2009) has termed, “the rise of the rest”: the economic emergence of a number of non-Western powers, from Brazil to Indonesia, South Africa to Turkey. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, international relations entered an unprecedented era of unipolarity (Brooks and Wohlforth 2008; Jervis 2009; Walt 2009; Wohlforth 2009). The United States’ overwhelming dominance in military, political, and economic terms was unmatched in 2 The real number is 989. 247 conventional, 742 nonconventional. 29 The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies - Summer 2012, Volume 4 human history, and seemed likely to remain so for the foreseeable future (Posen 2003). And yet today, according to the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2025 report, we are witnessing a global shift in relative economic power, “roughly from west to east,” and are approaching a truly multipolar economic order (NIC 2008, 7, 12). This “rise of the rest” emerged through the profound, sustained growth of the global economy, what Zakaria (2009) calls the “big story of our times” (27). Over the past four decades, the global economy increased nearly twenty-two fold, going from $2.9 trillion in 1970 to $63.1 trillion today (World Bank 2012).3 And with this global growth we have seen a massive movement for political change, largely in the direction of democracy (Fukuyama 1989; Huntington 1991; Inglehart 2000). In 1973, democracies comprised only 27 percent of the state system—by 2006 this number had swollen to just under 63 percent (Diamond 2007, appendix 2). While most would assume that the United States will remain

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    23 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us