Multilateral Security: Common, Cooperative or Collective?

  • Raimo Väyrynen
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

The concept of’ security’ has been used analytically in an ambiguous way’ thus creating a problem of homonymy; the same word is used for different meanings. According to Barry Buzan, security has been ‘a weakly conceptualized but politically powerful concept’. Politically, it has been used to legitimate very different external and internal policies depending on the internal structure of the state and its international position. This has fuelled controversies and made security, in Buzan’s view, an ‘essentially contested concept’.1

Keywords

Europe Ozone Coherence Olated Argentina 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1991, pp. 5 and 7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephen M. Walt, ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, 1991, pp. 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edward A. Kolodziej, ‘Renaissance in Security Studies?: Caveat Lector?’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 4, 1992, pp. 421–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    David A. Baldwin, ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’, World Politics, vol. 48, no. 1, 1995, pp. 117–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paul Joseph, Peace Politics. The United States Between the Old and New World Orders, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993, pp. 6–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnold Wolfers, ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, in his Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962, p. 153 (first published in 1952).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanns W. Maull, ‘Wirtschaftliche Dimension der Sicherheit. Entwicklungslinien in den letzten drei Jahrzenhten’, Europa-Archiv, vol. 44, no. 5, 1989, pp. 135–44Google Scholar
  8. Michael Borus and John Zysman, ‘Industrial Competitiveness and National Security’, in Graham Allison and Gregory F. Treverton (eds), Rethinking America’s Security. Beyond Cold War to New World Order, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992, pp. 136–75.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Brian McCartan, ‘Defense of Opulence? Trade and Security in the 1990s’, SAIS Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1991, pp. 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    Barry Buzan, ‘The Interdependence of Security and Economic Issues in the “New World Order”’, in Richard Stubbs & R.D. Underhill (eds), Political Economy and the Global Order, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Beverly Crawford, ‘The New Security Dilemma Under International Economic Interdependence’, Millennium, vol. 23, no. 1, 1994, pp. 25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beverly Crawford, ‘Hawks, Doves, But No Owls: International Economic Interdependence and Construction of the New Security Dilemma’, in Ronnie D. Lipschultz (ed.), On Security, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 149–86.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    Paul Krugman, ‘Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, no. 2, 1994, pp. 28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernest H. Preeg, ‘Krugmanian Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obfuscation’, in Brad Roberts (ed.), New Forces in the World Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996, pp. 107–18.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    E.g. Patricia Mische, ‘Ecological Security in a New World Order: Some Linkages Between Ecology, Peace and Global Security’, in Non-Military Aspects of International Security, Paris; UNESCO, 1995, pp. 155–95.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    These distinctions are made by Lothar Brock, ‘Peace Through Parts: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 28, no. 4, 1991, pp. 407–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lothar Brock, ‘Security Through Defending the Environment: An Illusion’, in Elise Boulding (ed.), New Agendas for Peace Research. Conflict and Security Re-examined, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993, pp. 79–102.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    Stephen Dycus, National Defense and the Environment, Hanover, NH. University Press of New England, 1996, ch. 4.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    Marc A. Levy, ‘Is the Environment a National Security Issue?’, International Security, vol. 20, no. 2, 1995, pp. 35–62 (the quotation is on p. 46).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 16.
    The view that environment should not be’ securitized’ is gaining increased support; see Daniel Deudney, ‘The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security’, Millennium, vol. 19, no. 3, 1990, pp. 461–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever & Jaap de Wilde, ‘Environmental, Economic and Societal Security’, Working Papers No. 10, Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    A similar approach has been advocated by Nina Graeger, ‘Environmental Security’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 33, no. 1, 1996, pp. 109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    These and related issues are discussed by Cynthia Enloe, 1994, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marysia Zalewski, ‘Well, What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?’, International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 2, 1995, pp. 339–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 19.
    Maria B. Olujic, ‘The Croation War Experience’, in Carolyn Nordstrom and Antonius CG M Robben (eds), Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995, pp. 186–204 (the quotation is on p. 197).Google Scholar
  26. 20.
    J. Ann Tickner, ‘Re-visioning Security’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theory Today, Oxford: Polity Press, 1995, pp. 185–97, esp. pp. 190–3.Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    Sam C. Nolutshungu, ‘International Security and Marginality’, in Sam C. Nolutshungu (ed.), Margins of Insecurity: Minorities and International Security, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1996, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    Ted Robert Gurr, Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts, Washington: The United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993, pp. 89–122.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    See Simon Dalby, ‘Security Modernity, Ecology: The Dilemmas of Post-Cold War Security Discourse’, Alternatives, vol. 17, no. 1, 1992, pp. 95–134Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    Ken Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, 1991, pp. 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 25.
    See Robert Mandel, The Changing Face of National Security: A Conceptual Analysis, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press 1994.Google Scholar
  32. Joseph J. Romm, Defining National Security: The Non-Military Aspects, New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 26.
    This perspective is stressed by Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament, State Making, Regional Conflict, and the Inter-national System, Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. K.J. Holsti, ‘War, Peace, and the State of State’, International Political Science Review, vol. 16, no. 4, 1995, pp. 319–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 29.
    Harold Müller, ‘Maintaining Non-Nuclear Weapons Status’, in Regina Cowen Karp (ed.), Security With Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on National Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press/SIPRI, 1991, pp. 301–39.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    For a more detailed presentation of this approach, see John Jacob Nutter, ‘Unpacking Threat: A Conceptual and Formal Analysis’, in Norman A. Graham (ed.), The Impact of Military Spending and Arms Transfers, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994, pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    A detailed classification along these lines has been developed by Dietrich Fischer, Non-Military Aspects of Security: A Systems Approach, Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993, ch. 2.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    For a more detailed discussion of the indirect effects of environmental factors on violence, see Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, ‘Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases’, International Security, vol. 19, no. 1, 1994, pp. 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 34.
    Terry Nardin, ‘Ethical Traditions in International Affairs’, in Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    The relevance of stalemate is stressed especially by I. William Zartman, ‘Negotiations and Pre-negotiations in Ethnic Conflict: The Beginning, the Middle, and the Ends’, in Joseph V. Monrville (ed.), Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, New York: Lexington Books, 1991, pp. 515–16.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    For various viewpoints on common security, see Raimo Väyrynen (ed.), Policies for Common Security, London: Taylor and Francis/SIPRI, 1985Google Scholar
  42. Raimo Väyrynen, ‘Common Security: A Metaphor and a Doctrine’, in Yoshikazu Sakamoto (ed.), Strategic Doctrines and Their Alternatives, New York: Gordon and Breach, 1987, pp. 164–88Google Scholar
  43. Dieter S. Lutz, ‘Gemeinsame Sicherheit: Das neue Konzept: Definitionsmerkmale und Strukturelemente im Vergleich mit Anderen Sicherheitspolitischen Modellen und Strategien’, in Egon Bahr and Dieter S. Lutz (eds), Gemeinsame Sicherheit: Idee und Konzept, Band I, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1986, pp. 45–82.Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    Kari Mottolc, ‘Prospects for Cooperative Security in Europe: The Role of the CSCE’, in Michael Lucas (ed.), The CSCE in the 1990s: Constructing European Security and Cooperation, Baden-Baden: Nomos 1993.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    Janie Leatherman, ‘Making the Case for Cooperative Security’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 31, no. 1, 1996, pp. 108–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 47.
    Randall Forsberg, ‘Creating a Cooperative Security System’, Boston Review, vol. 17, no. 6, 1992, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Hedley Bull, 1977, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 238–40.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Different aspects of collective security are discussed in, for example, Inis, Claude Jr., Swords into Plowshares: Problems and Progress of International Organization, New York: Random House (4th ed.), 1971 pp. 245–85Google Scholar
  49. Andrew Bennett and Joseph Lepgold, 1993, ‘Reinventing Collective Security After the Cold War and the Gulf Conflict’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 108, no. 2, 1993, pp. 213–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    For an extended criticism of collective security, see John Mearsheimer, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1995, pp. 26–37.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    George W. Downs and Keisuke Iida, ‘Assessing the Theoretical Case Against Collective Security’, in George W. Downs (ed.), Collective Security Beyond the Cold War, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994, pp. 17–39.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Marvin Soroos, ‘Global Change, Environmental Security, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 31, no. 3, 1994, pp. 321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stephen M. Walt, ‘Collective Security and Revolutionary Change: Promoting Peace in the Former Soviet Union’, in George W. Downs (ed.), Collective Security Beyond the Cold War, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994, pp. 169–95.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Charles Lipson, ‘Why Are Some International Agreements Informal’, International Organization, vol. 45, no. 4, 1991, pp. 495–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Björn Möller, Common Security and Nonoffensive Defense: A Neorealist Perspective, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The United Nations University 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimo Väyrynen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations