The end of the Cold War notably led to the emergence of a new world order. During the Cold War, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, dominated the trajectory of international relations for over forty years. Their strategic goal was to protect their territories from any nuclear threat; however, the end of the Cold War forced both to revise their security and strategic perceptions.
For “Francis Fukuyama,” the end of the Cold War was seen as a victory for democracy and capitalism, marking “the end of history.” This implies that history had reached its final stage due to the triumph of the United States and its allies and the fall of the Soviet Union along with other communist states. Since global security was at stake, the world had to address a situation reminiscent of the beginning of history. In summary, international relations scholars were compelled to reconsider their theoretical frameworks regarding security. This prompted “Stephen Walt” to label this period (the end of the Cold War) as a “renaissance of security studies,” referencing its significance as a development in the field of international relations. Through discussions surrounding the concept of security, it can be concluded that a critical approach can effectively address any threats in international relations.
Some key points of the critical security perspective will be presented, but first, the dominant realist perspective will be reviewed, followed by collective security and democratic peace theory, before ultimately identifying the current implications of critical security.
Realism in International Relations
The realist perspective will be examined, focusing on its view of security within international relations. Realism perceives international relations as power relations. To trace the roots of this theory, we must go back to ancient Greece and China. “Thucydides” laid the foundation for realism and the power dynamics inherent in it through his historical account of the war between Athens and Sparta, known as the “Peloponnesian War.” He stated, “The establishment of standards of justice depends on the type of power that supports them; in reality, the powerful do what their power allows them, while the weak must accept what they cannot refuse.” Similarly, “Sun Tzu,” the Chinese strategist from the era of “Mozi,” advised rulers on how to ensure their survival and use power to enhance their interests during wartime—marking the first time in history this was articulated. Centuries later, during the Italian Renaissance, the philosopher “Niccolò Machiavelli” wrote about power and state preservation while offering counsel to a prince experiencing a situation comparable to that of ancient China during Sun Tzu’s time. In his work “The Prince,” Machiavelli advised rulers to place power and security above all else, leading us to use the term Machiavellianism to describe excessive uses of power to control affairs. In 1700, English political philosopher “Thomas Hobbes” introduced the concepts of “state of nature” and “Leviathan,” illustrating that wars and conflicts between states are unavoidable. The “Leviathan” represents what is needed to “establish order and end the chaos characteristic of the state of nature,” which can be played by a “sovereign” or “state authority.” Hobbes asserted that a person in the “state of nature” exists in a condition where everyone fights against each other.
This perspective has influenced the realist view of international relations, wherein individuals’ nature applies to states’ relationships since there is no “Leviathan” or overarching power. Thus, the global system, where states interact without such authority, can become anarchic with states vying for power in a “everyone against everyone” scenario. Therefore, according to Hobbes, states, as actors in international relations, appear to be in a constant state of conflict over power. This renders non-state actors like the United Nations, the European Union, and non-governmental organizations irrelevant from a realist perspective. This state of affairs is referred to as a state-centric assumption. The role of the state in this context is to protect itself from other states, synonymous with “national security,” which revolves around possessing the power necessary to safeguard a specific state’s interests from its foes. This led realism to be viewed as a struggle over power in international relations. International conflicts, from this perspective, have accompanied human history, as states try to amplify their power to protect themselves and their specific interests, leading them to make rational decisions regarding security. The aim of this constant pursuit is the enhancement of their interests. States as actors in international relations must be rational, which can be summarized in five points.
Collective Security and Democratic Peace
Collective security represents the liberal perspective on security, wherein the concept of “national security”—the realist perspective on security—is replaced by the notion of “collective security” through the establishment of international organizations capable of guaranteeing it.
Liberalism offers an alternative security outlook different from realism. This trend considers national security and alliances as outcomes of the application of the realist perspective. However, liberals propose an alternative conception in the form of collective security, which, according to “Goldstein,” involves “forming an extensive coalition that includes most key actors in the international system with the aim of countering any other actor.” The German philosopher “Immanuel Kant” laid the foundations for this idea two centuries ago when he proposed the creation of a federation comprising nations of the world, where the majority of member states would band together to punish any state that aggressed against another. This means that member states in a collective security framework would cooperate against any country pursuing narrow self-interest. This idea influenced American President “Woodrow Wilson” in his vision of a peaceful world. After World War I, he was the one who decided to establish the League of Nations to promote peace globally, especially in light of the horrific images of war victims. In January 1918, he asserted that this League should be based on 14 principles leading to a stable post-war world order, including ensuring the independence of smaller nations that fell victim to the balance-of-power system, in addition to establishing an international organization to uphold security as an alternative to the balance of power.
Unfortunately, fascism in both Germany and Japan led to the outbreak of World War II. Since then, the collective security framework has failed to establish itself, leaving room for national security and alliances that characterized the world during the Cold War. Nevertheless, during this period, many countries sought to create collective security organizations as a counter to the national security perspective, not only to enhance their military security but also their economic and cultural security, including the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity. Even the United Nations was primarily established to serve as a collective security organization, despite the dominance of the five permanent members of the Security Council. From the above, collective security theoretically fulfills four functions:
- Responding to any aggression or attempts to impose hegemony—not limited to actions targeting specific countries.
- Involving all member states, not just enough members to deter the aggressor.
- Organizing a military response—not leaving it to individual states to determine what actions they deem appropriate for themselves.
Despite numerous obstacles to implementing collective security, this Kantian perspective remains relevant, and many debates have arisen around this issue, intensifying with “democratic peace theory” and “multilateral security frameworks,” as well as the “new medieval order” highlighted by post-Cold War policies. However, regardless of the labels, these concepts share one common point: democratic countries do not resort to war against one another.
With the end of the Cold War, the nation-state gradually moved away from adopting the old paradigm of national security, seeking new formulations for security, as this concept now had to be equipped to address regional crises, food crises, energy crises, environmental pollution crises, and others. These four crises are extremely sensitive to human life.
Critical Security Perspective
The intense debate between the realist and liberal concepts of security, along with modern transformations, has prompted the need to reconsider the concept of security within a critical security framework.
This concept finds its roots in critical theory, established by theorists of the Frankfurt School such as “Max Horkheimer,” “Theodor Adorno,” and “Jürgen Habermas.” Critical approaches present themselves as more interested in portraying the crisis of phenomena within Western (Enlightenment) thought, particularly issues related to foundations, conclusions, differences, the hierarchy of knowledge and opinion, major narratives, and more. They claim to possess analytical tools capable of clarifying the trajectory that the discussion around the concept of security has taken to ultimately take its final form through critical security.
In this regard, “Ken Booth” states, “My way of engaging in this critical discussion is to welcome any approach that enables us to confront the pernicious standards of Cold War strategic studies, ultimately leading to a reconsideration of the concept of security, given a commitment to ‘liberation’ (in contrast to leaving power dynamics as they are).” In this direction, Booth sees security as “liberation.” Thus, the central outlook regarding the new era’s security equates with liberation, which means, according to Ken Booth, “freeing people from the constraints that hinder their pursuit to move forward in realizing their choices, including war, poverty, oppression, lack of education, and many others.”
As a result, critical security can effectively deal with various ignored threats like natural disasters and poverty because the current security discourse, particularly its realist and state-centered approach, does not allow for addressing any threat beyond state-to-state conflict.
Conclusion
Thus, based on the above, the conceptualization of security has been tied to realism, which is based on the assumption that security is achieved through the nation-state, preventing conflicts among states. However, after the Cold War, new issues have raised numerous challenges for the concept of security, such as natural disasters and poverty. We now need a critical security perspective to identify the sources of our problems, establish solutions, and address them to enhance our well-being.
