International Security: Concepts and State Strategies
Traditional vs. Non-Traditional Security Concepts
The field of international security encompasses various perspectives on threats and how states respond to them. A fundamental distinction exists between traditional and non-traditional security approaches.
Traditional Security: External Threats and State-Centric Focus
In the traditional conception of security, the greatest danger to a country stems from military threats. The source of this danger is typically another country, which, by threatening military action, endangers the core values of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. Traditional security policy is primarily concerned with:
- Preventing war, a strategy known as deterrence.
- Limiting or ending war, which falls under defense.
Key components of traditional security policy also include:
- The balance of power, a crucial element in maintaining stability.
- Alliance building, where an alliance is a coalition of states coordinating actions to deter or defend against military attack. Most alliances are formalized in written treaties and are based on a clear identification of the threat.
Within traditional security, there is a recognition that cooperation in limiting violence is possible, and confidence-building measures are accepted as a means of avoiding conflict. Ultimately, in traditional security, force is both the principal threat to security and the principal means of achieving it.
Non-Traditional Security: Beyond Military Threats
Non-traditional notions of security extend beyond military threats to include a wide range of dangers affecting the conditions of human existence. These approaches begin by questioning the traditional referent of security (the state), and in doing so, they also question other elements: what is being secured, from what kind of threats, and the overall approach to security.
Proponents of human security generally agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. However, there are differences in precisely what threats individuals should be protected from:
- The ‘narrow’ concept of human security focuses on violent threats to individuals, or as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, “the protection of communities and individuals from internal violence.”
- The ‘broad’ concept of human security argues that the threat agenda should include hunger, disease, and natural disasters, as these often kill far more people than war, genocide, and terrorism combined.
It is important to note that the creation and sustenance of alliances belong to the traditional notion of security, as they are primarily designed to address military threats from other states.
The Balance of Power in International Relations
The balance of power is a fundamental component of traditional security policy. It refers to a state of equilibrium between nations, often achieved through a combination of military, economic, and technological capabilities. Smaller countries are often wary of potential conflict with larger or more powerful nations. Therefore, states strive to maintain a balance of power by developing their military, economic, and technological capabilities to safeguard their security.
For instance, a neighboring country may not explicitly state its intention to attack, and there may be no obvious reason for an assault. However, the sheer power of that country can signal a potential future aggression. Consequently, governments are highly sensitive to the balance of power between their country and other nations. They work diligently to maintain a favorable balance of power, especially with close neighbors, countries with whom they have differences, or those with whom they have had past conflicts. A significant aspect of maintaining a balance of power involves building up one’s military strength, though economic and technological power are equally vital as they form the foundation for military might.
State Choices When Security is Threatened (Traditional Perspective)
From a traditional security perspective, when a state’s security is threatened, it emphasizes strategies to limit violence by offering the following three primary choices:
- Surrender: A state may choose to surrender when actually confronted by war, though this is rarely advertised as a country’s official policy.
- Deterrence: To prevent the other side from attacking by promising to raise the costs of war to an unacceptable level.
- Defense: To protect itself when war actually breaks out, aiming to deny the attacking country its objectives and to repel or defeat the attacking forces altogether.
The core of a state’s security policy, therefore, revolves around preventing war through deterrence and managing or ending war through defense.