Security Issues in International Relations Are Best Addressed by Neo-Realist Approach. Discuss
'Security Issues are Most Effectively Addressed by a Neo-Realist Approach to International Relations.' Discuss.
Security has been the source for much debate within International Relations; ranging from the optimum way to provide security, through to the definition of security itself. Neo-Realism has, in the past, been the dominant approach to security issues within International Relations. However, in the past few decades events such as the end of the Cold War, international terrorism and globalisation have dramatically changed the world, which has only intensified the debate over which approach most effectively addresses security issues within International Relations. This essay seeks to argue that although, at one time it may have been, a neo-realist approach is not the most effective way to address security issues within today’s International Relations.
Neo-realist define security in terms of the security of the state and its survival, with this definition being based on the assumption that the international system is violent and anarchic (Tickner & Sjoberg, 2007). They see the state as paramount, with its citizens secondary to the state itself. The main goal of all politics is survival, with survival dominating all policies created. This stems from a fear of insecurity due to the fact that Neo Realists view the defining feature of the international system as anarchy (Lake, 2009); there is the constant threat of attack from other states, which forces all states to be suitably prepared. This is the Hobbesian logic of anarchy: “the war of all against all” (Wendt, 1999). Waltz, describes it as a “shadow of violence” in which some states may use force at any given time, so it is imperative that all are prepared to do so. Neo-Realists see power as being crucial towards security, which traditionally has been defined in military strategic terms (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008). As only the state has legitimate authority over the military, neo-realists view the state as a
Security has been the source for much debate within International Relations; ranging from the optimum way to provide security, through to the definition of security itself. Neo-Realism has, in the past, been the dominant approach to security issues within International Relations. However, in the past few decades events such as the end of the Cold War, international terrorism and globalisation have dramatically changed the world, which has only intensified the debate over which approach most effectively addresses security issues within International Relations. This essay seeks to argue that although, at one time it may have been, a neo-realist approach is not the most effective way to address security issues within today’s International Relations.
Neo-realist define security in terms of the security of the state and its survival, with this definition being based on the assumption that the international system is violent and anarchic (Tickner & Sjoberg, 2007). They see the state as paramount, with its citizens secondary to the state itself. The main goal of all politics is survival, with survival dominating all policies created. This stems from a fear of insecurity due to the fact that Neo Realists view the defining feature of the international system as anarchy (Lake, 2009); there is the constant threat of attack from other states, which forces all states to be suitably prepared. This is the Hobbesian logic of anarchy: “the war of all against all” (Wendt, 1999). Waltz, describes it as a “shadow of violence” in which some states may use force at any given time, so it is imperative that all are prepared to do so. Neo-Realists see power as being crucial towards security, which traditionally has been defined in military strategic terms (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008). As only the state has legitimate authority over the military, neo-realists view the state as a
Bibliography: Barber, B. (2003). Fears Empire. New York: W.W. Norton. 145-147. Bartlett, D.. (2008). Russia 's energy giant flexes its muscles . Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7259407.stm. Last accessed 25th March 2012. Buzan, B (1991). People, States and Fear. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster International Group. 220-241. Buzan, B. & Wæver, O. & de Wilde, J (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Buzan, B. & Wæver, O (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structures of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. (2008). Realism. In: Baylis, J. & smith, S. & Owens, P The Globalization of World Politics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 90-108. Lake, D. (2009) Anarchy. Prepared for the IPSA Encyclopedia of Political Science. Martin, L. (1992) Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions Princeton: Princeton University Press Mearsheimer, J (2001) Myers, N (1993). Ultimate Security: The Environmental Basis of Political Stability. New York: W.W.NORTON. Sachs, J (2008). Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: The Penguin Press. 3-10. Thomson, J.. (1995). State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Emperical Research. International Studies Quaterly. 39, 213-233. Tickner, J. A. and Sjoberg, L. (2007). Feminism. In: Dunne, T. et al eds. International Relations Theories. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 185-202. Wæver, O. & Buzan, B. & Kelstrup, M. & Lemaitre, P (1993). Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter. Waltz, K (1979). Theory of International Relations. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Wendt, A (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 43. Umbach, F. (2010). Energy Security and World Politics. In: Beeson, M. & Bisley, N Issues in 21st Century World Politics. China: Palgrave MacMillan. 202-213. Unknown. (2012). Iran. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/iran/. Last accessed 24th March 2012.