10.3.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 3
Fecha de subida 04/05/2016
Descargas 8
Subido por

Vista previa del texto

Marta Busquets Theory of IR 2016 10.4. A New Security Agenda 10.4.1. WHAT IS SECURITY? There is no agreement on what security is.
Freedom from threats to core values such as life, human rights, etc.
II. Who is the object of security? There are different perceptions: Individual (citizens), national (state - national security), international (world security) or global security.
III. Narrow or broad perspective? • Narrow = Violence.
• Broad = Political, economic and societal security, such as freedom of association, freedom of speech (political rights), economic rights, or social rights.
10.4.2. THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY After the COLD WAR security is understood as the absence of threats, either military threats but also soft threats, such as economic wellbeing, climate change, terrorism, etc. There is a broad perspective.
UN, 2004: “A more secure world”. The intrastate violence, poverty, diseases, environmental degradation, nuclear and new weapons, terrorism and transnational crime as “our responsibility”.
Creation of a new security agenda: • The Washington Doctrine of Security (2001-2008) • The Human Security Doctrine 10.4.3. THE WASHINGTON SECURITY DOCTRINE (2001-2008) • The United States is the only actor capable of acting as an hegemonic. Any securityconcerned issue must be tackled by the US, as they are the only ones capable of responding to security threats.
• Unilateralism: US is the only capable of deciding if something is good or not, without the need of having others.
• Flexible multilateralism and coalitions of the willing: Others will help you when you want to (when there’s a will). Certain countries join your coalition and go with your agenda, but the rest will follow their part and will go on their own.
• Pre-emptive use of force: If you foresee that a situation might endanger the security of the country, you have to act. You shouldn’t wait, as the consequences might be worse than if you act before and prevent it to get worse.
• All the concerns will move around a geopolitical and geoeconomic focus: The main concern is to secure those regions where you have political or economic interests.
Marta Busquets Theory of IR 2016 • Pragmatic approach to international organisations and reliance on the US power: You use multilateral and international organisations as long as they are good for you. You cannot rely on things that are not good for you or don’t bring you any benefit.
• Leadership by the US and allies. The leadership only relies on the use of force of those who have the force, which are the US and its allies. US is doing the best for the world, and they build a narrative arguing that the US want “the best for the world” = “A world safer for democracy and freedom”.
• Policy Agenda = Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 20013 and the War on Terror.
10.4.4. THE HUMAN SECURITY DOCTRINE 1. Human Development Report (UNDP, 1994): New dimensions of human security, based on two main areas: freedom from fear and freedom from want.
• Freedom from fear: Any individual should be fearful of its own life. No violence over individuals.
• Freedom from want: It includes freedom from fear, but expands the agenda of security, including education, well-being, etc.
2. The Responsibility to Protect (ICISS-UN, 2001): The state as the provider of security and the international community’s responsibility. 
 Sometimes the state is unable or unwilling to provide security to its citizens. Either it doesn’t have the capacity to provide this security to its citizens (unable) or it’s targeting systematically its citizens (unwilling), such as happens in Sudan. 
 If the State is not able to provide this security, then the international community must act in order to protect the citizens. Sovereignty must be a priority when the State is able or willing to protect its citizens. But if the State is either unwilling or unable, then the principle of sovereignty is less important than the security of the citizens.
Human Security Doctrine: DIFFERENT VISIONS I.
A wide agenda: There must be a link between the agendas of peace, security and development. 
 Is it possible to implement? II. The Canadian View: The international community should promote freedom from fear.
Focusing on the protection of civilians in conflicts, fighting against anti-personnel mines, preventing conflicts, etc. In case the conflict has already started, it is important to do peacekeeping.
III. The Japanese View: It goes along the premises of fear from want. The Human Security Doctrine should guarantee the minimum living standards for human beings, which are health and education (at least, primary education), fight against poverty, human trafficking or proliferation of arms.
IV. European Security Strategy (2003): Primacy of human rights, good governance, multilateralism, new threats, regionalism. 
 Instead of going on your own, you rely on multilateralism (for example, relying on the UN). 
 Recognition of new threats, such as the proliferation of new arms, the spread of human Marta Busquets Theory of IR 2016 diseases and infections, terrorism, etc. These new threats are wider than the traditional military threats.