The beginning of the 21st century opens a new chapter in international

politics, a chapter in which security and the reconfiguration and consolidation of

center of power, occupy the central place in determining the new world
architecture. The problem of international security is one of the most difficult and
complex question which experts from all around the world are trying to respond to
it.
International security comprises a comprehensive system of international
relations based on respect for the principles and rules of international law aimed at
maintaining international peace and stability, by preventing conflicts and resolving
disputes that have arisen peacefully.
For the study of international security, new approaches and various
methodologies have been developed based on a solid documentary basis, meant to
contribute significantly to the development of viable strategies at the international
level. Thus, international security has, respectively, several established concepts
and definitions, called traditional: neorealism: K. Waltz and comprehensive:
neoliberalism / neoconstructivism: R. Keohane, J. Nye / B. Buzan, O. Waever.
Barry Buzan (1983), the most important representative of this current, is the
one who states that for security studies more attention should be paid to the key
relationship between threats and vulnerabilities. Moving away from the narrow
neorealist view, Buzan argues that in the case of security, it all starts with trying to
obtain the release of the threat. For it, the objects of reference are the international
system, the state and individuals, the economic, political, military, cultural and
environmental landscape are sources of threat.
In this context, states have two possibilities: they try to reduce their
insecurity either by reducing vulnerabilities, by preventing or mitigating threats,
which means that national security policy can focus inwards, trying to reduce state
vulnerabilities or outwards, trying to reduce the external threat. Thus, the
vulnerability of the state is closely linked to weak states, which are characterized
as states with weak socio-political cohesion.
 The American researcher Morton Kaplan (1957), in his book “System and
Process in International Politics based on the general theory of systems and
systematic analysis, constructs abstract theoretical models, their purpose being the
better understanding of the international reality. Based on the fact that the analysis
of international systems involves the study of the ways and conditions in which
these systems exist or are transformed into other types of systems, Kaplan asks
himself why one system or another develops, how it works, why these systems do
they lose their functionality?
Kaplan includes in the international systems 6 types of systems: The “single
veto system” in which each actor has the opportunity to block the system, using
certain sources of blackmail. At the same time, everyone has the opportunity to
resist the blackmail given, regardless of how strong the state that uses it is. Any
state has the opportunity to defend itself from any opponent. This situation can be
created, for example, in the case of the widespread of nuclear weapons;
Balance of power system is characterized by multipolarity. According to Kaplan, in
this system there must be no less than 5 superpowers, if their number is less than 5
there is a risk of transforming the system into bipolar;
Loose bipolar system here coexist actors, states and new types of actors - unions
and blocs of states, universal actors (international organizations). Depending on the
internal organization of the 2 blocks that make up the system, there are many
variants of the flexible bipolar system. He can be hierarchical and authoritarian,
when the desire of the coalition leader is imposed on his allies. And it can be non-
hierarchical, if the line of the bloc is formed through mutual consultations between
the autonomous states much towards each other.;
Tight bipolar system It is characterized by the same configuration as the previous
system, they are organized strictly in a hierarchical way. The universal actor plays
a rather small role and is not able to influence one block or another. Within the
limits of both poles, the effective resolution of conflicts, the formation of
directions of diplomatic behavior, the use of power within reduced limits are
carried out; Universal International System - it corresponds to the federation, it
assumes that the universal actor plays main role, that an important place has the
political homogeneity of the international environment and is based on the
solidarity of national actors and universal actors. For example, if the role of the UN
increases to the detriment of state sovereignty, the UN would in this situation have
a competence in resolving conflicts and maintaining peace. Such a system implies
the presence in the fields, political, economic and administrative of the developed
systems of integration. The universal actor who has the right to establish the statute
of countries and to grant them resources has a special role in this system.
International relations operate on the basis of conditions, the universal actor has
the role and he is responsible for the observance of these conditions.;
Hierarchical international system which implies a “global government” by a
universal actor. The sovereign state loses its importance in this system, becoming
simple territorial units and any initiative on their part is forbidden.
Kaplan's concept in the literature is highly criticized - primarily for its
speculative character and distancing from the real truth. But at the same time, it is
appreciated that it is a first attempt of a serious research destined especially for the
problems of the international system in order to detect the laws of its functionality
and change. One of the main ideas on which Kaplan is conceptually based is the
idea that the basic role to study the rules, the laws of the international system has
its structure, this idea is supported by several researchers. According to this idea,
the uncoordinated activity of states, guided by its ideas and interests, forms the
international system specific to the domination of a small number of powerful
states, and the structure of which establishes the behavior of all actors.
Samuel Huntington (1997) argues that in the post-Cold War world, the most
important distinctions between people are not ideological, political, or economic,
but cultural. While nation-states will remain the main units of analysis in
international affairs, their behavior will be decisively influenced not by the pursuit
of power and wealth, but by cultural preferences, similarities, and differences.
Huntington defines civilization as the broadest level of recognition that a person
can identify with, one that refers to the values, social norms, and institutions that
govern society. Huntington wants to emphasize that Westerners need to
understand that their culture is unique, but not universal. Before attempting to
westernize a region, the cultural substratum of that region must be taken into
account.
Edward A. Kolodziej’s book “Security and International Relations”( 2005)
outline an expertise from schools of thought perspectives. From his point of view
the concept of international security, is an eternal subject of interest for specialists
in international relations, is analyzed comparatively according to the sets of
meanings attributed to it in various schools of thought - realism, neorealism, liberal
institutionalism, classical economic liberalism, Marxism, behaviorism and
constructivism. The author states that only an interdisciplinary approach to
security, which borrows from the ideas of each perspective, can comply with the
rigorous requirements of theory testing and meet the practical needs of actors in an
increasingly globalized world.