Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

Human security is the latest in a long line of neologisms—including common security, global security, cooperative security, and comprehensive security—that encourage policymakers and scholars to think about international security as something more than the military defense of state interests and territory. Although deanitions of human security vary, most formulations emphasize the welfare of ordinary people. Among the most vocal promoters of human security are the governments of Canada and Norway, which have taken the lead in establishing a “human security network” of states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that endorse the concept.1 The term has also begun to appear in academic works,2 and is the subject of new research projects at several major universities.3 Human Security Roland Paris

Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?

This article examines the evolution of security studies, focusing on recent developments in the field. It provides a survey of the field, a guide to the current research agenda, and some practical lessons for managing the field in the years ahead. Security studies remains an interdisciplinary enterprise, but its earlier preoccupation with nuclear issues has broadened to include topics such as grand strategy, conventional warfare, and the domestic sources of international conflict, among others. Work in the field is increasingly rigorous and theoretically inclined, which reflects the marriage between security studies and social science and its improved standing within the academic world. Because national security will remain a problem for states and because an independent scholarly community contributes to effective public policy in this area, the renaissance of security studies is an important positive development for the field of international relations.

/pdf/the-renaissance-of-security-studies-4wdez74bx5.pdf

The Renaissance of Security Studies

Redefining ‘security’ has recently become something of a cottage industry.E.g. Lester Brown, Redefining National Security, Worldwatch Paper No. 14 (Washington, DC, 1977); Jessica Tuchman Matthews, ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1989), pp. 162-77; Richard H. Ullman, ‘Redefining Security’, International Security, 8 (1983), pp. 129-53; Joseph J. Romm, Defining National Security (New York, 1993); J. Ann Tickner, ‘Re-visioning Security’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Oxford, 1995), pp. 175-97; Ken Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 313-26; Martin Shaw, ‘There Is No Such Thing as Society: Beyond Individualism and Statism in International Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), pp. 159-75; John Peterson and Hugh Ward, ‘Coalitional Instability and the New Multidimensional Politics of Security: A Rational Choice Argument for US-EU Cooperation’, European Journal of International Relations, 1 (1995), pp. 131-56; ten articles on security and security studies in Arms Control, 13, (1992), pp. 463-544; and Graham Allison and Gregory F. Treverton (eds.), Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order (New York, 1992). Most such efforts, however, are more concerned with redefining the policy agendas of nation-states than with the concept of security itself. Often, this takes the form of proposals for giving high priority to such issues as human rights, economics, the environment, drug traffic, epidemics, crime, or social injustice, in addition to the traditional concern with security from external military threats. Such proposals are usually buttressed with a mixture of normative arguments about which values of which people or groups of people should be protected, and empirical arguments as to the nature and magnitude of threats to those values. Relatively little attention is devoted to conceptual issues as such. This article seeks to disentangle the concept of security from these normative and empirical concerns, however legitimate they may be.

The concept of security

International Security Studies (ISS) has changed and diversified in many ways since 1945. This book provides the first intellectual history of the development of the subject in that period. It explains how ISS evolved from an initial concern with the strategic consequences of superpower rivalry and nuclear weapons, to its current diversity in which environmental, economic, human and other securities sit alongside military security, and in which approaches ranging from traditional Realist analysis to Feminism and Post-colonialism are in play. It sets out the driving forces that shaped debates in ISS, shows what makes ISS a single conversation across its diversity, and gives an authoritative account of debates on all the main topics within ISS. This is an unparalleled survey of the literature and institutions of ISS that will be an invaluable guide for all students and scholars of ISS, whether traditionalist, ‘new agenda’ or critical. • The first book to tell the post-1945 story of International Security Studies and offer an integrated historical sociology of the whole field • Opens the door to a long-overdue conversation about what ISS is and where it should be going • Provides a detailed institutional account of ISS in terms of its journals, departments, think tanks and funding sources

/pdf/the-evolution-of-international-security-studies-2gdx67e39e.pdf

The Evolution of International Security Studies

I T w e l v e years ago, in their foreword to the first issue of International Security, the editors expressed the hope that the journal would \"contribute to the disciplined discourse that distinguishes a profession. \" Such discourse should periodically include an examination of the state of the field. The editors of International Security therefore believe that readers of the journal will find of interest this overview of the present vigor and future direction of the field of international security studies. In it, the chairman of the editorial board and the managing editor of International Security offer their perspective on the progress of international security studies, stimulated by a conference on the state of the field. We feel that more discussion of the present and future state of international security studies is necessa y, and we invite further comrnenta y. -The Editors

International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field

Real ism is usually regarded as a dominant-and monolithic-approach in the study of international relations. In the past few years, however, some of the most vigorous and interesting debates in international relations theory have emerged among different types of realism. It has become clear that realism is not a single theory, but a family of theories. One of the most significant divides within realism is between offensive realism and defensive realism.* Offensive realists generally argue that the international system fosters conflict and aggression. Security is scarce, making international competition and war likely. Rational states often are compelled to adopt offensive strategies in their search for security.2 Defensive realists, on the other hand, argue that the international system does not

Realism and America's Rise: A Review Essay

I Political scientists often have cited the First World War as an example of inadvertent conflict caused by unduly bellicose foreign and military policies. At least four variations on this theme have been prominent. First, some authors argue that the war was the result of mutual incentives for preemptive attacks or rapid mobilizations.’ A second school of thought suggests that the war arose from rigid organizational routines, especially in Germany and Russia, that restricted the freedom of political decision-makers by requiring wide mobilizations and, in the German case, early attack once mobilization had taken place.* A third interpretation, related to the first two, attributes the war to a

Détente and Deterrence: Anglo-German Relations, 1911-1914

I T h e 1972 Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents at Sea between the United States and the Soviet Union' is a virtually forgotten remnant of an era that produced dozens of U.S.-Soviet accords. Although it was almost ignored in both the American and Soviet announcements of the various agreements that emerged from the May 1972 Moscow summit, the agreement has helped to avert potentially dangerous incidents between the U.S. and Soviet navies. Most of the achievements of detente have lost their luster with the passage of time, but the agreement's effectiveness appears to have survived the deterioration of U.S.Soviet relations. The agreement deserves to be considered more closely, not only because it has reduced the oft-overlooked dangers of naval incidents, but also because of its potential utility as a model for other agreements to govern incidents in the air or in space. More generally, the success of the agreement demonstrates that confidence-building measures-constraints on military activities and improvements in communications that are intended to reduce the risk of inadvertent war or surprise attack-represent a workable alternative to traditional arms control proposals that impose quantitative or qualitative limits on weapons. The 1972 agreement has reduced the number of dangerous incidents and cases of harassment at sea. Before the agreement, encounters between U.S. and Soviet warships on the high seas frequently led to tense situations as opposing vessels maneuvered to disrupt one another's formations or ha-

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v009/9.4.lynn-jones.pdf

Sean M. Lynn-Jones

Papers

International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field

Realism and America's Rise: A Review Essay

Détente and Deterrence: Anglo-German Relations, 1911-1914

A Quiet Success for Arms Control: Preventing Incidents at Sea

Realism and America's Rise: A Review Essay@@@From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role.