GOVT6119 International Security - Short-Answers Essay Assignment Help

Q Of what use is theory for international security?

1. The traditional theory of IR which can be used for international security is Realism but we first need to understand the concepts of international security and realism separately. According to Britannica, realism is a theory of international relations that underlines the role of the nation, national interests and power of the military in global politics. A country is assumed to be safe if it can protect the citizens against or dissuade an aggressive attack and avert other nations from captivating it to regulate its behaviour in important ways or to sacrifice fundamental political morals. This concept may be compared with other definitions of “security” that emphasize on either the people or the worldwide and do not honour the state, or those that contain peaceful threats to a person’s life (for example illness or environmental degradation), domestic misconduct, economic adversity, or coercions to cultural independence (Buzan, 1983). The first version of International Securitywas published in 1976 that defined the term security as aspects with a ‘direct behaviour on the foundation of the state system and the authority of its citizen, with particular importance on the use, risk and control of force’. In case of realists, ‘no nation will detriment its interests to help the greater community’ (Frankel, 1996). In 2012, it was reported by the US National Security and Policy Strategy that the danger of anarchism in the international system disturbs security tactics (Stolberg, 2012). Consequently, security is understood within the language of uncertainty and risk to the nation. The societies may deliver a law for preserving security, but they do not eliminate the cause of uncertainty; explicitly supposed intentions of state actors. Realism does not necessarily provoke violence by states, though it presumes that there is a sense of risk in the global system. States driven mainly by security should not as a universal law try to maximise their comparative power’ (Glaser, 1996).

If no nation is striving for power they are not pursuing to develop. Fear created by states is thus inappropriate, ‘if all states are moderately certain that none pursues development then the security predicament falls away’ (Schweller, 1996). This is a direct task to the realist concept of security being in the honest interest of the nations, and not on the bases of confusion of national behaviour. Realist theory might comprise a flaw in relation with the ‘genuine’ incentives of states, the predominant example of an uncertain international environment remnant. The security problem becomes deceptive through a scrutiny of arms ethnicities such in South East Asia after the Cold War. The USA and the Soviet Union influenced the relations among the ASEAN members, but with removal of their sovereignty after the Cold War radical ambiguity reimbursed (Buzan, 1994). For example, Singapore is believed to have formed a security plan where ‘launching a pre-emptive attack’ on possible Malaysian violence may be essential (Collins, 2000). China was also seen as the ‘key menace to uncertainty’ in the 1990s (Buzan, 1994).

Observations of national behaviour as a factor for violent deed under a radical system shows how far realism has subjugated the understanding, by both dogmatic actors and academics, of the safety of the region. New security fears have been incorporated within the realist example by those who claim that issues such as economic and environmental pressures strengthen the state system, rather than undermine it (Mearsheime, 1990; Rohde, 2004).