1. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:40:26
Wolfers
2. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:44:14
Buzan
3. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:44:21
Gallie
4. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:42:56
Booth
Part 1 - Introduction
5. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:48:42
1 Security: absence of (fear of) threats to acquired values
E.g. economic, social,
2 3 • Political/contested → dispute about proper use
environmental threats
• Language as valuable tool (creates urgency, provokes response)
• Broadening definition:
6. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:54:05 4 • Emancipation: freedom from physical/human constraints on free will
Lindsay • “Survival plus”, individual-focused
5 • Post-cold war: external threats → diversified
Will only create more insecurity in • Constant/inevitable presence of threats
another aspect 6 • Search for absolute security defeats itself
• Trade-offs necessary
7. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:41:47 7 Security studies: study of threat/use/control of military force
Walt • Typology:
Security for whom? Source of threat
Traditional, state-centric
definition Military Military or non-military
8 9
States National security Redefined security
8. Comment 10 11
23 March 2021 at 17:51:14 Societies, groups, individuals Intrastate security Human security
Conventional realist approach • Timeline:
• Golden age (50s-60s):
9. Comment • Post-WWII: find long-term strategy to avoid war
23 March 2021 at 17:51:36
• Redefine national interests (include welfare of citizens)
E.g. environmental and economic 12 • Nuclear revolution: deterrence theory
security • Deductive, rational strategizing
13 • Very hypothetical
10. Comment • End of golden age (60s-70s)
23 March 2021 at 17:51:21
• Post-Vietnam war: peace studies
E.g. civil war, ethnic conflict, 14 • Critique of deterrence
democide 15 • Public disinterest in national security
• Security studies unfashionable, more focus on IPE
11. Comment
• Renaissance/comeback (70s-90s)
23 March 2021 at 17:51:45
• More systematic (base on historical data)
E.g. environmental and economic
16 • New methods (vs behavioralism)
threats to survival of societies
17 • New realities → focus on preventing war (vs use war to attain peace)
18 19 • US/Europe distinction
12. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:57:31
Readings:
Huth: threat of military retaliation
• [T] “An Introduction to Security Studies”, in Williams & McDonald, Introduction to Security
prevents use of force to pursue
Studies, 1-14.
policy goals
• [B] Waever, Ole, and Barry Buzan. 2016. “After the return to theory. The past, present and future
of security studies,” in Collins, Alan, Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
13. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:58:23 Press, 417-435.
No nuclear war has actually
occurred
14. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:00:36
Escalation, proxy wars, assumes
rationality/perfect information
15. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:01:43
E.g. opposition to Vietnam war
16. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:02:41
More diverse approaches
E.g. comparisons
,17. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:03:36
E.g. end of Cold War, Iranian
revolution, Nicaraguan revolution,
Soviet interventions in African
states/Afghanistan
18. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:05:07
Traditional military
19. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:05:16
Human security, critical
approaches, “security dialogue”
, 20. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:17:45
Ambiguous symbolism of
weapons (offensive vs defensive)
21. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:18:01
Limited understanding of other
party (intentions, etc)
22. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:34:36
Defensive can be perceived as
offensive
E.g. US ballistic missiles defense Part 2 - Anarchy, Uncertainty and War
system
E.g. China building space stuff
Existential features of international system:
• Anarchy: absence of government (common superior)
23. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:46:23 • Horizontal relations between states
Jervis’s defensive realism • Consequence: system of fear (for survival) → mistrust → self-help predicament
• Uncertainty: quality of not being known beyond doubt
Agree on security arrangements • Existential condition, inherent
to better anticipate/understand • Perception impacts outcome
each other • National intelligence agency provides info about past events, current situation, intentions,
likely future
24. Comment • Types:
23 March 2021 at 20:52:14 20 21 • Unresolvable (material and psychological causes)
Keohane, neoliberal • Future: assume the worst (pessimism)
insitutionalism • Thucydides trap: when a rising power threatens to replace a ruling one, war is almost
inevitable
25. Comment • Power distribution
23 March 2021 at 20:53:37
Critical approach Security dilemma: two-level strategic predicament in international relations
22 • Interpretation (ambiguous symbolism)
From Hobbes to Locke to Kant • Response (limited info → unclear which response is best)
• Consequence: arms race (→ unintended war)
26. Comment • Responses:
23 March 2021 at 20:55:08 • Fatalist logic: define each other as enemies + maximize power
Wendt • Offensive realism (Mearsheimer)
• Security paradox: spiral of mutual hostility
27. Comment • Mitigator logic: create international security regimes
23 March 2021 at 20:54:36 23 • Predictability via mutual learning
Overcome negative perceptions 24 • Cooperative atmosphere + confidence-building mechanisms
• Repeated interactions (transparency + communication)
28. Comment 25 • Transcender logic: create a different world order
23 March 2021 at 21:01:19 • Identify and abolish problem (e.g. patriarchy)
Von Clausewitz: “politics by other 26 • “Anarchy is what states make of it”
means” 27 • Form security communities
Large or sustained violence 28 Causes of war:
between political organizations 29 • Power transitions theory: initiated by either challenger or declining power (preventative war)
• Bargain model of war: result of bargaining failure
Political decision to adopt a • Since war is costly, always prefer peace
military strategy • Factors:
• Information problems
Rational and instrumental pursuit
• Pursuit of more information
of power 30 • Credible commitments
31 • Issue indivisibility
29. Comment 32 • Limits: assumes unitary states and rational leadership
23 March 2021 at 21:03:01
Organski and Kugler
Case study: US-China relations
30. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:04:33
Prevent from being cheated
31. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:04:05
Source of conflict doesn’t allow
for bargain (all or nothing)
E.g. identity, special territory
32. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:05:28
Ignores potential cognitive bias
23 March 2021 at 17:40:26
Wolfers
2. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:44:14
Buzan
3. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:44:21
Gallie
4. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:42:56
Booth
Part 1 - Introduction
5. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:48:42
1 Security: absence of (fear of) threats to acquired values
E.g. economic, social,
2 3 • Political/contested → dispute about proper use
environmental threats
• Language as valuable tool (creates urgency, provokes response)
• Broadening definition:
6. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:54:05 4 • Emancipation: freedom from physical/human constraints on free will
Lindsay • “Survival plus”, individual-focused
5 • Post-cold war: external threats → diversified
Will only create more insecurity in • Constant/inevitable presence of threats
another aspect 6 • Search for absolute security defeats itself
• Trade-offs necessary
7. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:41:47 7 Security studies: study of threat/use/control of military force
Walt • Typology:
Security for whom? Source of threat
Traditional, state-centric
definition Military Military or non-military
8 9
States National security Redefined security
8. Comment 10 11
23 March 2021 at 17:51:14 Societies, groups, individuals Intrastate security Human security
Conventional realist approach • Timeline:
• Golden age (50s-60s):
9. Comment • Post-WWII: find long-term strategy to avoid war
23 March 2021 at 17:51:36
• Redefine national interests (include welfare of citizens)
E.g. environmental and economic 12 • Nuclear revolution: deterrence theory
security • Deductive, rational strategizing
13 • Very hypothetical
10. Comment • End of golden age (60s-70s)
23 March 2021 at 17:51:21
• Post-Vietnam war: peace studies
E.g. civil war, ethnic conflict, 14 • Critique of deterrence
democide 15 • Public disinterest in national security
• Security studies unfashionable, more focus on IPE
11. Comment
• Renaissance/comeback (70s-90s)
23 March 2021 at 17:51:45
• More systematic (base on historical data)
E.g. environmental and economic
16 • New methods (vs behavioralism)
threats to survival of societies
17 • New realities → focus on preventing war (vs use war to attain peace)
18 19 • US/Europe distinction
12. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:57:31
Readings:
Huth: threat of military retaliation
• [T] “An Introduction to Security Studies”, in Williams & McDonald, Introduction to Security
prevents use of force to pursue
Studies, 1-14.
policy goals
• [B] Waever, Ole, and Barry Buzan. 2016. “After the return to theory. The past, present and future
of security studies,” in Collins, Alan, Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
13. Comment
23 March 2021 at 17:58:23 Press, 417-435.
No nuclear war has actually
occurred
14. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:00:36
Escalation, proxy wars, assumes
rationality/perfect information
15. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:01:43
E.g. opposition to Vietnam war
16. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:02:41
More diverse approaches
E.g. comparisons
,17. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:03:36
E.g. end of Cold War, Iranian
revolution, Nicaraguan revolution,
Soviet interventions in African
states/Afghanistan
18. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:05:07
Traditional military
19. Comment
23 March 2021 at 18:05:16
Human security, critical
approaches, “security dialogue”
, 20. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:17:45
Ambiguous symbolism of
weapons (offensive vs defensive)
21. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:18:01
Limited understanding of other
party (intentions, etc)
22. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:34:36
Defensive can be perceived as
offensive
E.g. US ballistic missiles defense Part 2 - Anarchy, Uncertainty and War
system
E.g. China building space stuff
Existential features of international system:
• Anarchy: absence of government (common superior)
23. Comment
23 March 2021 at 20:46:23 • Horizontal relations between states
Jervis’s defensive realism • Consequence: system of fear (for survival) → mistrust → self-help predicament
• Uncertainty: quality of not being known beyond doubt
Agree on security arrangements • Existential condition, inherent
to better anticipate/understand • Perception impacts outcome
each other • National intelligence agency provides info about past events, current situation, intentions,
likely future
24. Comment • Types:
23 March 2021 at 20:52:14 20 21 • Unresolvable (material and psychological causes)
Keohane, neoliberal • Future: assume the worst (pessimism)
insitutionalism • Thucydides trap: when a rising power threatens to replace a ruling one, war is almost
inevitable
25. Comment • Power distribution
23 March 2021 at 20:53:37
Critical approach Security dilemma: two-level strategic predicament in international relations
22 • Interpretation (ambiguous symbolism)
From Hobbes to Locke to Kant • Response (limited info → unclear which response is best)
• Consequence: arms race (→ unintended war)
26. Comment • Responses:
23 March 2021 at 20:55:08 • Fatalist logic: define each other as enemies + maximize power
Wendt • Offensive realism (Mearsheimer)
• Security paradox: spiral of mutual hostility
27. Comment • Mitigator logic: create international security regimes
23 March 2021 at 20:54:36 23 • Predictability via mutual learning
Overcome negative perceptions 24 • Cooperative atmosphere + confidence-building mechanisms
• Repeated interactions (transparency + communication)
28. Comment 25 • Transcender logic: create a different world order
23 March 2021 at 21:01:19 • Identify and abolish problem (e.g. patriarchy)
Von Clausewitz: “politics by other 26 • “Anarchy is what states make of it”
means” 27 • Form security communities
Large or sustained violence 28 Causes of war:
between political organizations 29 • Power transitions theory: initiated by either challenger or declining power (preventative war)
• Bargain model of war: result of bargaining failure
Political decision to adopt a • Since war is costly, always prefer peace
military strategy • Factors:
• Information problems
Rational and instrumental pursuit
• Pursuit of more information
of power 30 • Credible commitments
31 • Issue indivisibility
29. Comment 32 • Limits: assumes unitary states and rational leadership
23 March 2021 at 21:03:01
Organski and Kugler
Case study: US-China relations
30. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:04:33
Prevent from being cheated
31. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:04:05
Source of conflict doesn’t allow
for bargain (all or nothing)
E.g. identity, special territory
32. Comment
23 March 2021 at 21:05:28
Ignores potential cognitive bias
