10.2.War and the New Security Agenda (2016)

Apunte Inglés
Universidad Blanquerna (URL)
Grado Relaciones Internacionales - 2º curso
Asignatura Theory of International Relations
Año del apunte 2016
Páginas 2
Fecha de subida 04/05/2016
Descargas 8
Subido por

Vista previa del texto

Marta Busquets Theory of IR 2016 10.2. New Security Dilemmas 10.2.1. TRADITIONAL SECURITY DILEMMA • The achievement of domestic security with state. By creating the state, we can overcome this state of nature. The state as the tool to provide security to all the citizens.
• International security rooted in anarchical state system, as there is no world government. This creates insecurity among the states.
10.2.2. NEW INSECURITY DILEMMA in FRAGILE STATES • These states are quite save from external threats. They are free of attacks from external powers. Threats don’t come from the international sphere, as the system created has as its main principle the sovereignty.
• Insecurity that takes places in fragile states is the state itself. The state causes a problem to the citizens of the state: Dictatorships, for example, make insecurity and conflict able to happen inside the state. You have insecurity coming from the inside.
A. The threat comes form the regime that has the power in the state: From the dictators that rule and own the power of the state. For example, Mubarak, who didn’t guarantee security to all of the citizens of the state.
B. The state is not able to provide security or peace to its citizens.
C. There is no popular support.
D. There is a lack of identification with the state. The citizens don’t feel identified with the regime.
10.2.3. NEW SECURITY DILEMMA IN POST-MODERN STATES Debate: Freedom vs Security.
How much security is necessary to protect freedoms? 10.3. The Transformation of War 10.3.1. MARTIN VAN CREVELD, 1991.
Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”.
• The Clausewitzian war: “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. Why war happens? It is a social and historical activity, as states will go to war throughout history in order to save its own interests.
• The trinity of war: 1. People: Protected from war but with no right to interfere in state’s decisions. Going to war or not is an autonomous decision of the government 2. Army: The military, separated from the civilians, and instrument of governments.
Marta Busquets Theory of IR 2016 3. Government: They are capable of waging organised war and defining interests of sovereign states. They are the ones deciding to continue politics by other means.
• The total war (or modern world wars): • There is total mobilisation of the population, that are affected by violence.
• Creation of national armies, formed by any man of the state. These armies are created in order to defend the nation.
• The government has absolute power to mobilise all the resources for war. They are the ones able to mobilise the human resources and the material resources.
10.3.2. CHANGING CHARACTER OF WAR • Nontrinitarian wars: • There is no division into people, army and government.
• Low-intensity conflict resurgence: • New actors such as guerrillas, terrorists or warlords • Unlimited warfare, as there are no rules in war. They mainly affect the citizens (violations, massive killings, etc).
• No distinction between crime and war.
• No distinction between those who are combatants and those who are non-combatants.
• Use of technology. Creation of the asymmetric warfare, as the new weapons create much more causalities.
• New wars (Kaldor, 1999): • Globalisation is a driving force. Conflicts are not as much related as ideology, but they are driven by identity factors.
• Disintegration of states and fragile states causes fight for the control of the state: This makes up 95% of the conflicts within states. Most of the conflicts today are happening within states that are weak and that there is a fight for the control of the state.
• Collapse of the economy, corruption and criminality.
• Privatisation of violence because of private companies but also because of paramilitary groups, organised crimes, etc.
• No distinction between civilians and combatants, that are mixed. Most of the victims of this new wars are civilians and not combatants (children and women as the main victims).
War has changed from a Clauswitzian war, to the total war and, finally, to the new wars. This has left space for the international community to create a new security agenda.