International Security

• International security, also called global security, refers to the

amalgamation of measures taken by states and international organizations,
such as the United Nations, European Union, Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures
include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and
conventions. International and national security are invariably linked.
International security is national security or state security in the global
arena.
• Traditional security issues are about the threats against the essential values of the
state, territorial integrity, and political sovereignty. Means, which are also important
in defining traditional security, consist of weapons, armaments systems, and the
military, but diplomatic means like pacts and alliances aimed at building special
relations between states for security purposes are also means of traditional security.
All such means, as well as the essence of traditional security, are constantly
changing under the impact of technological innovation, new ideas, and political
evolution. Today, change in three areas shapes the security agenda of states like
China and international organizations like the European Union (EU).
• First, the security of the states is within the competence of the primary institution
of the world, the United Nations (UN), which promotes multilateralism as a form of
collective security protection. In the past 30 years, recourse to multilateral peace
operations has been increasing, and, major states like China, and the most
important international organizations, like the EU, have been directly involved in
the advancement of the principles, rules, and mechanisms of multilateralism.
Second, a new form of cooperation is gaining momentum at the regional level,
complementing and gradually overcoming the tried and tested form of military
alliances.
• The question of security has long since preoccupied the minds of International
Relationists. The traditional concept of security with the state as the main
referent has been up for extensive debate. The realist view of security where it is
seen as a “derivative of power” reduces the complex concept of security to a
mere “synonym for power”. This view could be considered relevant during the
period of the World Wars, where states seemed to be in a constant struggle for
power. However, in the post-Cold War era, the concept of Security has become
much more multifaceted and complex.
• In his book, People, States and Fear, Barry Buzan points out that the concept of
security was “too narrowly founded”, his goal was to, therefore, offer a “broader
framework of security” incorporating concepts that were not previously considered
to be part of the security puzzle such as regional security, or the societal and
environmental sectors of security. Buzan’s approach is more holistic; and while he
primes his analysis with neorealist beliefs such as anarchy, the depth of his analysis
is constructivist in that he does not accept the given, but rather explores each
element of what he considers to be the security package one by one in order to
arrive at a more informed conclusion.
• In his work, People, States and Fear, Buzan veers towards a broader understanding of security
based levels and sectors. The three levels that are referenced and addressed in detail in his work are
individuals, states and international systems. The sectors, which he also addresses in the article
“New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First Century”, are Political, Military, Economic,
Societal, and Environmental. These concepts cannot adequately address the issue of security
separately, each one is intricately and complexly linked with the next forming a web of information
that a Security Analyst or International Relationist must detangle to understand each concept
individually in order to be able to see how they affect each other on the whole. This micro/macro
methodology is something that, while infinitely complex, is also of the utmost importance in order
to be able to get a better idea how to deal with what Buzan calls the “‘National’ Security Problem”.
• Related to this, is the way in which Buzan uses an epistemological methodology
throughout his work. From the first level of analysis, Buzan acknowledges that in
order to complete this complex study of security where the state is assumed as the
main referent, one has to first ask oneself; what is the nature of a state? When
thinking along the lines of individual security, we can understand that security can
be considered as a factor of “life, health, status, wealth, freedom”8 amongst a few
examples. These elements “are complicated and many of them cannot be replaced
if lost”. The concept of threat can, therefore, be relatively easily understood for an
individual.
• However, as pointed out above, the concept of security does not follow a cookie-cutter
model, and we cannot copy-paste individual security and expect the same concept to work
for national security. Buzan, therefore, considers the nature of the state in order to be able to
understand the security of “larger and more complicated entities” that are “more amorphous
in character”. Buzan takes this consideration of the essence of the state all the way to a figure
provided in his work, which represents the idea of the state, the physical base of the state and
the institutional expression of the state on the three points of a triangle. This is to show that
the components of the state can be discussed as security issues alone, but that they are
interlinked and the “examination of the linkages between them is a fruitful source of insight
into the national security problematique.
SECURITY IN FIVE “SECTORS”: MOVING FROM THE TRADITIONAL
NATIONAL
SECURITY TO NEW SECURITY SECTORS

• Along similar lines to that of addressing the levels essential to

understanding security, Buzan also addresses the different sectors of
security. In his article “New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First
Century”, Buzan analyses how five sectors of security (Political, Military,
Economic, Societal, and Environmental) might affect the “periphery” based
on changes in the “center”. The five sectors of security are an important
concept to understand when studying Buzan.
• As Buzan points out in his article, “New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty First
Century”, the “five sectors do not operate in isolation from each other. Each defines a
focal point within the security problematique, and a way of ordering priorities, but all are
woven together in a strong web of linkage”. This is clearly seen in his book when he
examines the different sectors of security in relation to threats. The obvious threats that
would seem to present the most pressing concerns are military, which are capable of
posing threats to the state on several levels. Military threats can affect all components of
the state. It can put into question the very basic duty of a state t be able to protect its
citizens as well as have an adverse effect on the “layers of social and individual interest”.
• The level and objectives of military threat can take on different levels of importance, and
the fact that they involve the use of force puts them in a special category when it comes
to security. Political threats represent a constant concern for a state as well; however,
they can be more ambiguous and difficult to identify in relation to military threats. As the
state is, itself, a political entity, a political threat with the purpose of weakening that
entity can be considered to be on par with a military threat. They can take the form of
competition amongst ideologies, or an attack to the nation itself. However it is important
to distinguish between intentional political threats and “those that arise structurally
from the impact of foreign alternatives on the legitimacy of states”.
 ECONOMIC, SOCIETAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITES
• The political and military sectors of security identified by Buzan are accompanied by
three others that are more difficult to define: Economic, Societal and Environmental or
ecological. Economic threats, for example, are difficult to determine due to the nature of
economics itself. As Buzan points out, “the normal condition of actors in a market
economy is one of risk, aggressive competition and uncertainty”, this insecure nature
makes economic security hard to disentangle. The threshold of what is acceptable based
on an inherent instability and what is a threat can be difficult to identify. As has been
seen with the current economic crisis, there is a significant amount of debate as to what
parts of the US’ economy should be “saved” by the government and what should not.
• The banking system that was addressed as an economic threat was considered to
have crossed this threshold. The economic sector is also a clear example of how the
different sectors interact with on another. Buzan address the important linkage
between economic security and military security. It is easy to see that they military
security is dependent on economic security due do budget constraints and limits.
Furthermore, economic security can be considered a key indicator as to the
general security of a state. If developed and developing countries are compared, it
is clear that with economic security other levels of security become easier to
establish.
• Societal security is possibly the most intriguing of the five to consider. While it is difficult to
separate it from the political sector, societal threats are about identity and the balance (or lack
there of) that can be found within any given state. Weak states are often ill-equipped to deal with
differences in identity and culture. If Afghanistan is used as an example, one can see that the
differences in culture, ideology and ethnicity, which make up tribal boundaries found within the
state are not easily reconciled with the state itself, “a Western construction” – according to some
critics. These issues spill over into neighboring Pakistan, which shares ethnicities and identities. It
is clear with this example that societal security is deeply connected with political and even
military security. Most conflicts that are prevalent now are those that have a societal element. It
is therefore, important to take this sector into account when studying security on a macro level.
• However, it is also important to stress that the notion of “societal security” is
difficult to apply since it deals with identities and cultures – essentially
subjective and contextual constructions – it can easily lead to politics of
discrimination and exclusion.
• The environmental sector also proves difficult to define and can be considered the most
controversial of the five sectors. When thinking of possible ecological threats, one often thinks
of the “struggle humans have with nature” such as earthquakes and hurricanes. These events,
in themselves, are impossible to control. The more recent issues of human impact on the
planet that are resulting in phenomena such as global warming, pollution, and the ozone layer
to name a few, is where we can see more clearly a controllably variable in relation to the
environment. If these issues come to the forefront in years to come, the ecological sector will
be getting more attention. Possible initiatives to address these issues will be dependent of
economic security as well as political security, as these issues can be considered not only a
threat to an individual state, but also global threats that will have a widespread effect.