what Buzan offers in the article is that the concept of security is being able to bridge some of the
gaps that power studies and peace studies miss
What is security?
bridge between power and peace studies?
How do were explain armed conflict?
How do we understand peace?
just the absence of violence, or something more substantial?
Why do we study these things?
are we trying to understand int’l pol. for how things work now, or are we trying to understand
these things to then envision what the int’l system could look like after change
generally relating to safety, stability, freedom from threat/harm
many different definitions
multiple levels of security
int’l (system), national (state), individual (personal)
peace studies look more at int’l level, for the global system
power studies look more at state level
the idea of security can bridge both levels
mil., pol., eco., env., resource, energy, food, cyber…
the term security can be put after all of these, and many more (new buzzword)
gives us another framework or language to talk about these things
more comfortable for a state to situate its policy in environmental security than in
easier to pass, easier to swallow
armed forces, civil defense, diplomacy, eco. power, intelligence, infrastructure
the int’l level, these measures might look a bit different, because these are more state level
for int’l: norms, mutual defense systems, etc.
what can we actually point to to intentionally ensure security at state or int’l level?
security looks a lot different to different policy-makers
i.e. war on terror was seen as very necessary security for those in US as operationalizing
security there, whereas others disagreed and interpreted the case differently
not a lot of objectivity within the notion of security
Security and Realist-Idealism (Buzan)
talking about the concept of security and applying it to theory as well
sees it as a bridge between the polar approaches of realism (prominent in Cold War) and
latter is too idealistic and naive
realism is too cold and calculating
narrow (focus solely on state), pessimistic, self-fulfilling?
focuses so much on nat’l level that it can be to the expense of the int’l level of security
assumes security threats, which can make it a security dilemma
broad (focus solely on system), naive, unrealistic?
looks so broad that it misses the very real concerns that states have about their own defences
not practical in our current system, policy implications somewhat lacking
recognizes state and system
manage insecurity; not succumb or deny it
gives a frame for managing conflict