Joseph Nye has given the model of 21st century world politics as 3 dimensional chess

board. Elements of 3 D chess board are:

 In terms of military power world is unipolar.

 In terms of economic power world is multipolar.

 Third layer represents social power: growth of many non-state actors like civil
society networks, MNCs and terrorist actors. At this level power has become
too diffused

Collective Security

The concept of collective security is seen as a liberal alternative to realist ideas like
balance of power. It was first proposed by Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had played a major
role in the creation of League of Nations, which was based on the idea of collective security.
Realist argues that nations have to depend on self – help and there cannot be any collective
security. However, liberals believe that security of a nation is common concern for all in
order to preserve and ensure world peace. Both liberals and realist believe in the same
assumptions about international politics being anarchical leading to wars and lack of trust
(security dilemma). Realist advocate BOP as a solution to maintain peace. However, liberals
offer a solution to security dilemma in the form of collective security.

Concept of Collective security has been influenced by following ideas:

 Domestic politics: like we have an authority to maintain order in domestic politics,

similarly at the international level a common authority can be created to avoid and
check arms race between states. Therefore, a common authority at the international
level can help resolve the security dilemma of states.
 Balance of power: collective security is also based on the view that power is
antidote of power. This means common power vested in an international authority
or organization can help maintain order by providing collective security.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 1

Collective security is the practice or pledge of nations to defend one another in order to deter
aggression or to punish a transgressor if international order has been breached. Its key idea is
that aggression can best be resisted by united action taken by a number of states, this being
the only alternative to the insecurity and uncertainty of power politics. Collective security is
based on the principle of „all for one and one for all‟. Successful collective security depends
on following three conditions:

 States must be roughly equal or at least there must be no preponderant power.

 All states must be willing to bear the cost and responsibility of defending one another.
 There must be an international body that has the moral authority and political capacity
to take effective action.

Differences between BOP and collective security

Balance of Power Collective Security

BOP assumes that states operate in a self- Security can be collective concern of states.
help world where they should prioritize their John Locke also believed that man is self-
individual security. interested but can accommodate interests of
others in his own enlightened self-interest.
BOP is an informal system which helps Collective security is institutionalized BOP.
address security interests of nations. It is ensured with the help of an international
organization. It is based on a contract
between nations. Therefore, collective
security has an advantage of certainty
(because of institutionalization).
BOP and realism rejects the possibility of a Collective security is considered as a
world government. midway house between BOP and world
government.

Concept of collective security is also different from the concept of collective defense.
Collective security is universal and neutral whereas collective defense is meant only for its
members and the enemy is predetermined. Examples of collective defense are NATO
(which was formed against communist bloc of countries) and Warsaw pact (which was

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 2

formed against NATO). Examples of collective security are League of Nations and United
Nations.

India has always supported collective security and has always opposed joining defense
pacts like NATO and Warsaw (chose to stay nonaligned). However for USA there is not
much difference between collective security and collective defense. US policies reflect that
collective defense is only possible way to achieve collective security.

Analyzing the past and present practice of collective security

League of Nations: this was the first experiment which tried to use CS. However league
failed to deliver and could not ensure CS. Failure of league meant that it could not prevent the
outbreak of WW 2. Following were the reasons for the failure of the league:

 There was no clarity about the act of aggression and its determination.
 League of Nations was based on very idealistic principles where all nations had veto
power. Unanimity was required in the assembly and council for taking any action.
 USA was out of League of Nations.
 The responsibility of making the league work fell on the shoulders of Britain and
France. They were suspicious from the very beginning and had no experience in such
system.
 European countries continued the traditional policy of forming alliances and counter
alliances.
 Britain and France considered USSR as a bigger threat than fascist Germany. They
looked at Germany as counter to communism. They overlooked defiance of collective
security by fascist powers. They rather preferred appeasement policy towards
countries like Germany.

United Nations Organization: article 39 to article 51 of UN charter deals with collective

security. Article 39 empowers UN Security Council to decide on collective security action.
Collective security can be operationalized by the affirmative vote of 9 members subject to the
condition that no permanent member uses veto. UN members are committed to contribute
forces for collective security efforts.

Looking at the performance of UN in the previous century, one can see that there has been
very few occasions where UN has used its powers to operationalize collective security.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 3

Prominently it was done only during the Korean crisis of 1950 and later during the gulf
war when Iraq attacked Kuwait. Reasons for such rare use of collective security powers
have been misuse of veto power by permanent members during the cold war (east –west
conflict).

Moreover, UN has been more involved with UN peace keeping operations. UN peace
keeping operations have emerged because of the failure of collective security. UN is now
known for its contribution towards peace keeping operations and not for collective security.
However, collective security differs from peace keeping. Collective security fulfills a
military action whereas peace keeping fulfills a policing function.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 4

 Security
Concept of security is one of the central concepts in IR. All theories of international politics
try to address this core concept of security and widely differ from each other in their
assertions. Theories of IR are also often called as security theories.

Realist concept of security:

In international politics concept of security has traditionally evolved as a realist concept.

Realist explanation of security has been very state centric and its primary concern has
always been securing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. According to
the realist, security of the state is accomplished by military preparedness, deterrence, arms
race, diplomacy as well as by achieving balance of power. According to Dietrich Fischer
“sate lies at the core of all aspects of security over and above the differences between them”.

Therefore, state centric realist explanation of security forms the traditionalist position on
security in IR. This traditionalist position has been very eloquently explained in the words of
Stephen Walt. According to Stephen Walt “state security is about the phenomenon of war
and it can be defined as the study of the threat, use and control of military force”. Responding
to critics of realism Stephen Walt argues that if the agenda of security is widened outside the
military domain, then it would destroy the intellectual coherence of the idea of security.
Putting so much into it would mean that its essential meaning would become void.

Liberal concept of security:

Liberals take wider view of security. According to liberals threats to security are anarchy,
protectionist policies, limited interaction, militaristic state and absence of democracy.
Liberal methods to achieve security are liberal institutionalism (based on the idea of
collective security), trading state, security community, democratic peace and functionalism.

Feminist concept of security:

Feminist prioritizes human security over state security. Security of women is the most
important concern for the feminist. Patriarchy is the biggest threat to women security.
Security can be achieved by bringing back ethics into politics and by bringing women
perspectives. Empowerment of women is the central concern of women security.

Critical school concept of security (critical security studies):

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 5

Critical school scholars like Keith Krause and Michael Williams in their seminal work
“Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases” suggest broadening and deepening of
the concept of security. Which means moving either down to the level of individual or up to
the level of international or global security, where regional and societal security is placed as
intermediate points.

One of the prominent critical theorists Ken Booth has majorly contributed in the
development of critical security studies. According to Ken Booth “security means the
absence of threats. war and threat of wars is one of those constraints, together with
poverty, poor education, political oppression and so on. Emancipation not power or
order, produces true security”. Therefore, primary focus of critical security studies is
emancipation. According to critical school emancipation means freeing of people from the
physical and human constraints which stop them from carrying out what they would freely
choose to do.

Ken Booth in his book “Critical Security Studies and World Politics” has listed following
features of the critical school concept of security:

 Universalist
 Inclusive
 Normative
 Emancipatory
 Progressive
 Critical

Post – structuralist concept of security:

Bradley S Klein in his book “strategic studies and world order” has developed a post –
structuralist concept of security in IR. According to Klein language of strategic studies is
concentrated on threats. He also argues that fear and security are used as tools to
legitimize the process of state formation and maintenance.

David Campbell also gives a post – structuralist view point on security in his book “writing
security”. He attempts an analysis of US foreign policy. Campbell argues US foreign policy
demonstrates certain dangers and threats to construct a specific identity for the US as an
international actor.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 6

Constructivist approach to security:

According to Constructivism State interests are constructed rather than "existing" or

"discovered", and security policies are shaped by "contested identities", cultures and
norms within a society. Norms shape the security behavior of states. Following the
arguments of Alexander Wendt, security can also be understood as “what states make of it”
and therefore is socially constructed.

Focus of the constructivist approach to security is on individual, community and identity.

Security is achieved through community rather than power and insecurity is not simply a
given condition of international system (social construct). National security interests are
defined by actors who respond to cultural factors.

Copenhagen school‟s concept of security:

Prominent scholars like Barry Buzan and Ole Weaver belong to the Copenhagen school.
Buzan has argued that security is a contested concept in IR. He explains that security is a
weakly coneptualised and underdeveloped concept. Ole Weaver argues that traditionally
state has been the reference point for the analysis of international security, whereas
individual should be the “irreducible base unit” for discussion about security.

One of the biggest contributions of Copenhagen school to security studies has been the
“theory of securitization”. According to Buzan security is not only about the objective
absence or presence of threats, dangers and risks but also involves the politics of
securitization and desecuritization. Actors can bring securitization by presenting something
as an existential threat and by dramatizing an issue as having absolute priority. If we do not
tackle this, everything else will be irrelevant and by labeling this a security issue, the
actor claims the right to deal it with extraordinary means, to break the normal political
rules of the game (secrecy, levying taxes, conscription, and limitations on inviolable
rights). Security has become a „illocutionary speech act” that solely by uttering “security”
something is being done. It is by labeling something a security issue that it becomes one.

Securitizing actor claims a right to extraordinary measures to ensure the referent objects
survival. Security does not have a preexisting meaning. It can be anything a securitizing actor
says it is. Security is a social and intersubjective construction. By securitizing an issue, it is
transferred from normal politics to emergency politics. Sense of importance and urgency
legitimizes the use of special measures.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 7

Above approach results in militarized and confrontational mindset (us versus them).
Moreover, state which is recognized as a security provider has in many ways become a
source of fear and insecurity for its own people. Barry Buzan proposes desucuritizing issues
and remove them from security agenda. Ideas of Copenhagen school are very similar to the
social constructivist concept of security.

Buzan has also proposed a multidimensional approach to security, which would be best
suited to the 21st century world politics. According to him the nature of world order has
changed and so the state centric westphalian notion of sovereignty has become irrelevant.

Barry Buzan suggests five pillars of security:

 Military security
 Political security
 Economic security
 Societal security
 Environmental security

These five pillars do not operate in isolation with each other. Today security policy needs to
be multi-faceted. The realist view is too narrowly defined and there is need to broaden the
security agenda.

Barry Buzan: “People, States and Fear: An agenda for International Security Studies in post – Cold War era”

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 8

 Human Security

The concept of human security challenges the state-centric idea of security by focusing on the
individual as the main referent object of security. Human security is about the security for
the people, rather than for states or governments. Therefore, human security puts people first
and attempts to advocate “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want”. Human security
approach considers human development as the bedrock of the concept of security. Human
security can be defined as the absence of threats to human life, lifestyle and culture
through the fulfillment of basic needs.

The origin of the concept of human security can be traced back to the publication of the
Human Development Report (1994) by UNDP. The report defined the scope of human
security by delineating its seven dimensions:

 Economic security – an assured basic income.

 Food security – physical and economic access to basic food.
 Health security – protection from disease and unhealthy lifestyles.
 Environmental security – protection from human induced environmental degradation.
 Personal security – protection for traditional identities and values.
 Community security – protection for traditional identities and values.
 Political security – the existence of rights and freedoms to protect people from
tyranny or government abuse.

In March 1999, UN also established a United Nations Trust Fund for Human [Link]
finances activities undertaken by practitioners working to translate the human security
approach in to practice.

Views of scholars:

Human security has been a contested concept. Scholars have disagreed on its scope. Few
scholars try to emphasize “freedom from fear” aspect of human security, whereas, others
extend it beyond “freedom from fear” to also include “freedom from want”.

Mahbub ul Haq pioneered the human security approach and he had conceptualized the
UNDP’s Human Development Report. According to Haq, “human security is not a concern
with weapons. It is a concern with human dignity. In the last analysis, it is the child who did

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 9

not die, a disease that did not spread, an ethnic tension that did not explode, a dissident who
was not silenced, a human spirit that was not crushed.”

Mary Kaldor defines human security as the security of individuals and communities rather
than states and it combines human rights and human development.

According to Lloyd Axworthy (an expert on Canadian approach to Human Security), “focus
of human security is less on threats associated with underdevelopment and more on the
insecurity resulting from violent conflict, while recognizing that such conflicts are not
confined to interstate conflicts. Human security is thus defined in terms of freedom from
fear.”

According to Sverre Lodgaard, “the concept of human security should better be confined to
freedom from fear of man-made physical violence, also referred to as direct, personal
violence. A broader understanding of human security as freedom from structural violence
will undermine the clarity of the notion and make it difficult to develop priorities and devise
effective policy responses.”

According to former UN secretary general Kofi Anan, “human security can no longer be
understood in purely military terms. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social
justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human
rights and the rule of law. Moreover, these pillars are interrelated; progress in one area
generates progress in another.”

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 10