In recent decades, security has become a widely used concept, even a fashion word, a self who understands what this term and concept is. Today, practitioners and theorists, including realists, neorealists, neoliberals, neo-socialists, neo-constructivists, and postmodernists, are debating security. Regardless of the specific content of the discussions, it is clear that the dominant military approach to security from the Cold War times has now led to a new recognition of security as a major threat and consequently a very important area, topic or problem. That’s how ordinary people, scientists, politicians, etc. think. In essence, it is ontological security, a priori an argument where security is widely unambiguous, an important phenomenon.
The following analysis does not aim to divide the various theoretical schools described above in detail, but rather uses the concept of security (in practice and theory) in previous centuries, with particular emphasis on the confusion and the controversial concepts of security that have emerged in recent decades.
Security Concepts in History
James Der Derian has looked at the genealogy of the security concept in previous centuries. He brings out three different approaches. First, security in history has meant “being protected”, “free from danger”, and “security.” For example, this concept he brings to the “Security Act” adopted by the Scottish Parliament in 1704, which stipulated that Queen Anne’s successor could not be on the throne until the kingdom had reached sufficient security.
At the same time, there has been a different approach to security and negative content. Security was meant to be a false and bad meaning for someone’s position. The example of Der Deriani is here from Edmund Burke, who in a letter in 1774 says “my friend’s inaction, neglect and blind security are all that interests him”.
Between the two previous concepts, the third version of security remains – security, debt or some kind of commitment is trying to gain assurance, its security. Here, for example, is the obligation to ensure peace
The analysis of the above security concepts helps to explain two things: firstly, about whom security was spoken and, secondly, what was the meaning of the concept of security. The historical genealogy of the security concept shows that the subject of security (for whom security was spoken) was both an individual (second and third approach) and a nation (first and third versions). In the 18th century, no national / national security was written, because national security is the security of a nation state or a modern state, which is largely based on the principle of national interest. In that century, the first nation states were still in their early stages of development, as a whole, with the gradual creation of a nationwide system of nation states.
20th Century and Security: Theory and Practice
The two world wars of the 20th century have both influenced the concept and analysis of security and real politics. During the period between the two world wars, there was less talk of security policy, more practical issues of war and peace on the agenda and issues of international law – war prevention, disarmament, conflict prevention, and hence the signing of all kinds of international and multilateral agreements and pacts. Security as the norm of international and national-national relations emerged at the end of the Second World War in the second half of the 1940s. A collective security institution was created – the United Nations, one of the most important working bodies of which was the structural unit called the Security Council.
In August 1945, debates in the US Senate spoke about security (and not so much the defense of the state), and then the then naval leader, James Forrestal, emphasized that the United States’ interest in the international arena is national security rather than defense, and security can only be achieved by “widespread and comprehensive” action.
In the United States, the National Security Act was adopted in 1947, under which the National Security Council was established. This document outlined a definition that national security consisted of internal, external and military policies. The National Security Act is an interesting document, as it was not adopted a law of national interest, for example, nor was it created by the Collective Defense Agency, the emphasis was on security.
Thus, the United States, at the end of World War II, dominated the concept of an integrative security policy (a combination of internal, external and military policies), and used the practice of cooperation between different partner countries of the war. There is also an explanation for such a security approach. In the mid-1940s, a situation emerged in the United States where, on the one hand, the people who participated in the war moved into the civilian domain and, on the other hand, it was decided to convert the military sphere into a positive security that consisted of integrative, including non-military aspects. Either way, some civilians found themselves in the unexpected part of security, an area that, under certain conditions, was dominated by internal politics, the economy, as well as internal political and other information. Thus, in the middle of the last century (1945-1947), the United States paid attention to the broader content of security.
From the late 1940s to the early 1950s, the world polarized ideologically. The ideological divide was accompanied by a specific militarization of values, which in the case of security meant the gradual emergence and dominance of force and military aspect (threat /defense/attack). Focusing on the military aspect has actually narrowed the initially broader approach to security in the United States. More specifically, it meant a commitment (priority of interest) to the military sphere, to the military, to military technology caused by different (conflicting) values systems of different states, ideological perceptions.
During the same period, university professors, scientists began to present more detailed analyzes of international politics, including security. The world’s polarization after World War II was accompanied by the emergence of one of the most famous international relations theory – realism. In 1948, an American researcher Hans Morgenthau published a book entitled “Transnational Policy”. The idealistic positions of international politics so far were replaced by an analysis in which the state became the central actor of international politics, and as a result, security was first and foremost linked to the state, national / national security, which in turn depended on the national interests and goals of a particular country. In the framework of realism, the bipolar situation in the world was also analyzed, where states based on identical interests formed an ideological alliance and where power and power and the principles of balance of power played a big role.
Regardless of the school, the particular philosophies, the Cold War-related scientific security analysis almost always paid special attention to the military aspect, and the latter was often the sole guarantee of security, and security analyzes were identified with military research, which, however, did not coincide with strategic research, but sometimes caught as a synonym for military analysis. This means that Cold War strategic research is not directly military research. Specific security theories that supported the world’s bipolar power-play / power balance idea between eastern and western systems focused above all on military (army, armaments, strategies and tactics, etc.). There was a security horizon and a series of strategic theories that all concerned security. In some ways, security theories were part of larger strategic analyzes. Robert Jervis is one of the most well-known theorists of that period; Arnold Wolfers, Hugh Macdonald and Gert Kell.
Confusions of Security Comprehension in the 1990s
In the late years of the end of the Cold War, especially immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, which also meant the disappearance of the bipolar international system, many different ends were written: the end of history, the end of ideology, the end of philosophy, the end of industrial society, the end of nation states, the end of politics, the end of security etc. With the disappearance of the enemy, traditional military security, along with ideological and political-economic counter-systems, enemies and enemy nations, also disintegrated. In some ways, there was even a hurricane-optimistic perception of a world where the opponent was absent and consequently there was no security for this traditional-military version. Some new theory had to be offered.
The first attempts to move away from military definitions and concepts of security were made in the late 1980s, early 1990s. In 1989, Jessica Tuchman Mathews wrote in the Foreign Affairs magazine that national security must include all sorts of resources, environment and demographic problems. In principle, then, analysts understood security as a rational assessment, an informed analysis of potential threats and different risks that (research, prevention and resolution) are subject to certain studies and real activities.
At the same time, there was a formal discussion of when the second (or, after mid-1940s) experience of security, an extended or non-military approach, began exactly? Although most analysts said it was in the late 1980s, early 1990s, with the abovementioned loss of bipolarity, some European analysts found that the impetus for a broader approach to security was given by the think-tank established in 1968, which was already analyzed in the 1970s publications. world problematic ”- poverty, environmental degradation, uncontrolled urbanization, loss of reliability, alienation of young people from the country, abandonment of traditional values, inflation and economic crises. This allegedly spoiled the substantive expansion of the later security concept. In addition to the so-called inward-looking expanded security issues in West Germany, Willy Brandt developed a foreign policy of its kind – Ostpolitik, aimed at stabilizing relations with socialist Germany and the Eastern bloc countries, to soften the contradictory relations of East-West. At the same time, however, Americans and Europeans are more or less united in the fact that neither in the 1970s nor in the 1980s did any significant security area develop, no extended or narrowly military, theoretical school.
In the 1990s, the situation became even more difficult. Presenting a new concept instead of the old and well-defined realistic school security (politics) principles of international relations caused difficulties. Both theorists and practitioners – philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, and others analysts, as well as politicians, diplomats and military personnel, were in a difficult situation, on the one hand, the real international situation was obviously radically changed, but on the other hand it was extremely complicated to present a comprehensive and logical model of a new world order with a security aspect 11 similarly to the Cold War period developed into a realistic school of international relations, would have provided a new comprehensive explanation and analysis of this area of security. In principle, in the 1990s, there was no greater theory of international relations, but also a related definition of security, or the resulting definition, and a more in-depth analysis that the world public would have supported. In the mid-1990s, American scientist Samuel Huntington presented a theory of collision of civilizations, which until now is the only widely known and recognized approach. The world-wide criticism of conflicting (conflicting) civilizations, which had been initially criticized, proved to be, at least in part, at the beginning of the 21st century, when analyzing increasingly widespread terrorism.
In the 1990s, the process called globalization began to gain more and more momentum. Globalization has also become a kind of fashion word, but its definition has been much easier, for example, creating a new security concept, defining the concept (content) of security, raising the object of security and providing guarantees.
Although globalization is a comprehensive concept, it is not generally disputed that it is a long-term and universal process involving almost all spheres of life, individual individuals, groups of individuals, many countries and groups of countries by the beginning of the 21st century. He is concerned with economic change, communication development, where time and space have gained new meaning. In international politics, globalization also means two interlinked tendencies – political-economic regionalization, concentration and grouping on the one hand, and increasing (inter-regional) interdependence, border opening, mass culture, controlled and uncontrolled spread of technology and technology, and so on. In principle, globalization is a kind of contradictory process, where the interactions between territories (states) operate simultaneously and at the same time the importance of the place and distances, the process not involving the whole world, and the multiplicity of cultures. Certainly, the concept of wide-ranging globalization has somehow “contributed” to the confusion of security definitions in the 1990s.
In the context of a globalizing world, theorists and practitioners tried to avoid narrow military analysis. Some analysts suggested that security in the context of globalization means reducing the negative aspects of the past, preventing potential existential threats, and maximizing positive development opportunities.
In many security analyzes, an attempt was made to present so-called expanded and deepened concepts, whereby security encompasses a vast scale (practically everything) of what causes human concern and creates problems for states. It is about economy, diseases, demographic processes, the natural environment, crime, etc. – everyone was part of security, and this approach has been reflected in scientific texts, university textbooks, country policy strategy papers, newspapers and magazines. In this case, however, the whole world unexpectedly changes or, to a lesser extent, the majority of it becomes a security sphere, and such logic leads us in principle to chaos, where everyone (an individual, analyst, politician, state, international organization, etc.) has the opportunity to choose their own area of concern and declare it to themselves and others.
Finding the answer to the main question – what is security? At the beginning of the 1990s, three fundamental questions were raised: security (including security): firstly, who or what is secured, what is secured? Individual? Country? Society? Culture? Here, very contradictory answers were received. Second, what is the basis of security, courage, security (order, condition)? Protecting against the general enemies? Protecting against an internal or external enemy? Protecting against neighbors (such as neighboring countries)? Protecting against economic pressure? Environmental sustainability? All of them were offered, but it was also clear that in practice, it was difficult, if not impossible, to perform. Third, how do the ideas of security evolve? Do they arise during the public debate and then form institutional, organizational and behavioral rules? Are they presented by a political, economic or military elite? Are security ideas evolving in some form of fear or socially constructed based on a specific (bad) situation? The last block of questions was actually the most complicated and contradictory of the three – not sure how the ideas of security emerge and evolve and why it happens at all.
In the new international context, it was not so much a redefinition of security as a completely new definition of security. Security as such was not established, because the object of security was not clear – it was a state, a nation, an individual or something else? The nation was sometimes replaced by a nation, again a (single) individual instead of a nation, but often reality instead of the idea and principle showed something different. For example, what happened in Somalia in the early 1990s proved that it was not for the preservation of the Somali people, but for the preservation of the state, while politicians spoke of the people. One of the best-known Western security theorists, Barry Buzan, argued that the definition of security is more of a moral, ideological and normative element that creates a situation where rational individuals can never reach an agreement. Namely, both morality and ideology (and consequently normality) are the areas where it is most difficult to negotiate and find a common language, and these issues are generally avoided in the negotiation process.
Researchers Johan Galtung and Jan Øberg formulated their own security concept based on four positive goals and related to basic human needs: survival, development, freedom and identity. Security in such a framework will become a combined defense activity in each of the areas mentioned above. All in all, a holistic program is being achieved for a world where there is a constant development of well-being and so on. All of the above is very logical, but will we ultimately deal with security issues and, above all, with defining security? However, it can also be approached differently. This concept is based on the individual and the unsatisfactory fulfillment of his / her primary needs in each of the four areas is a threat to him / her and is vulnerable. As a result, any individual’s problems become potential security challenges and again we are in a stupid situation – where should the limit be drawn – what is and what is not security? We then come to a situation where the reality of security is an infinitely expanding reality (it is endless!) And that involves with it all the sub-sectors of social and political life.
Advocates of a broader security approach (so-called non-traditionalists) offered general classifications of security, such as a level concept – global, international, regional, national-national, individual to simplify the situation. National-national security, in turn, is divided into binary systems – foreign and internal security. External security is often related to the military aspect. Individuals often talk about security. But such presentation of circumstances often does not solve the main problem – what is the security of the modern world, to whom (the so-called reference object) this security is meant – for the individual, the state, the whole world, for everyone, for someone / something else? On whose behalf is security sought?
Basically, flat, classified security is a clear-cut international actor – state, international organizations, powerful economic corporations, etc. – Existence. In today’s globalizing world, however, the boundaries of these actors are dispersed, interdependence increases, and the roles of system operators are also changing – more and more important (instead of nations) different national associations, economic corporations, international organizations, and individual individuals can mean significant weight in certain situations. The blurring of the role of the state in real international politics is certainly one of the reasons that complicates both the definition of security and the definition of the concept. Already in 1991, B.Buzan brought out a confusion with the security reference that was firmly associated with the state at that time. If we assume that the state is first and foremost a security, then we are also talking about three components of the country: firstly, we are dealing with a national idea (nationalism); secondly, we are talking about the physical bases of the country (territory, resources and technology), and thirdly, the state has an institutional output (administrative and political system). It is possible to fix threats to each component and, through threats, we reach security. But what happens when all three components disappear? What are the dangers and threats we are talking about about security? In addition, the concept and understanding of the threat in history has changed as it is in modern situations (geographically, politically, economically, etc.)
Individual security is the area that has been the focus of most contemporary security theorists. It is also called a deeper analysis of the security concept, not a broader concept. Human security or human security has been at the heart of the philosophical discussions of pluralists and social constructivists. For them, in a globalized world, the security object cannot be a state or a non-state nation, but an individual who forms one or another community, community, society, and consequently, in the case of individual security, it is definitely necessary to take into account the well-established situation and certainly the temporal dimension – when we talk security of the individual. One way to define security would be as follows: security is the release of individuals from insecurity experienced in specific situations. Security is usually fixed by the elite, which means that security is a subjective assessment.
With a different definition of threat-based security, the proponents of the military aspect of security (traditionalists) came out, continuing to emphasize the military factor in dealing with security. They consistently argued that security is a threat, a control and a military force, a power and a power. Stephen Walt found that those who want to extend security to the economy, the environment, and so on. find themselves in a logic of environmental pollution, harassment of children, economic crises and so on. are all security threats. This, however, means the elementary fragmentation of the issue and makes it virtually impossible to find solutions to problems, because everything is security and it is impossible for everyone to find solutions. The purpose of security research is to address potential threats and to analyze the need for and implementation of military control. Traditionalists believed that extending security to all sorts of areas of life actually means moving away from security.
Old Security Analyzes and New Issues
In the analysis of modern security issues, the following three important points can be highlighted: firstly, there are two more historical security concepts presented by Der Deria today – the need to be free from threats and to gain confidence through certain guarantees. The duty to ensure security through guarantees is also a topical issue and the latter is based on ethical-normative regulations.
Secondly, there is an expanded security concept, where it is possible to prioritize areas of concern from a security point of view, but more and more a military aspect is emerging, this time in connection with the increased threat of terrorism worldwide.
Ole Waever’s understanding of security, a Danish researcher, a representative of the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, clarifies the sequencing of problems. Security is first and foremost a practice, a matter, a topic. Security discourse is characterized by the dramatization and prioritization of a particular problem. There is some existential danger, and if we do not deal with it, then everything else becomes meaningless. Thus, security is a spontaneous practice. We do not measure security threats, but highlight those problematic topics / areas that are more important than ordinary policy and need quick solutions. A choice has to be made when and what to deal with as a security issue. All in all, Waever’s analysis is based on the traditional concept of security (existential threat and survival) and on the innovative approach to security (not just military) and objects (not just state). Who or what defines security today as a need for survival? Not only a nation-state, because the state and the nation are partly divorced today and the European Union can be one example here.
Waever also develops his idea for the security of the society (the community of cohesion) (societal security), in situations where societies perceive a threat to their identity. In Europe, this identity is a nationality, and its only major competitor here is religion.
In addition, the ethical-moral, commitment-to-security aspect is often linked to other areas of the expanded presentation of security. For example, the altruistic behavior of states in providing economic aid to hungry nations in African or Asian countries is actually related to the lives and death of individuals, larger groups of people.
Thirdly, as a result of the spread of terrorism, a philosophical dilemma has emerged: which is more important – the order and stability often achieved by military means, thus reducing the individual’s fundamental freedoms, or vice versa – the individual’s fundamental freedoms, which are always subject to military action.
The Philosophical Dilemma of Security: Order or Freedom?
In a renewed world order, we must take into account the fact that, in the 1990s, military (traditional) security fell somewhat in the eyes of analysts with the collapse of the bipolar world. It was during this period that an expanded security concept came into being, which involved virtually all the problematic areas of the wall to the individual, society and the state. One of the reasons for such a situation was certainly the lack of a dominant security area except for the local wars. However, the terrorist attacks of 2001 in the United States and the subsequent terrorist acts in Madrid (2004) and London (2005) were back in the forefront of traditional military security. Instead of a former notorious East-West confrontation, a gradually widening gap between symbolically northern and southern, essentially poorer and richer nations, began to emerge, which is particularly emphasized by cultural differences.
New issues have also emerged: how true / false (partly or totally) is the theory of civilian clashes called Samuel Huntington associated with terrorism and its causes? Will the fight against terrorism bring back the military approach to security again? Answering the previous question in the affirmative: – how to solve the moral dilemma between military security (a legitimate preventive attack on terrorism) and the fundamental rights and freedoms of people? After the terrorist attacks of the beginning of the 21st century and the countermeasures taken (often military ones), the latter issue has been particularly acute in Western democracies. Dilgad is also called the conflict between liberal democracy and its opponents. Some of the parties to the conflict (called conservatives in security philosophical analyzes) argue that, in a military world of a renewed world, democratic governments must fight terrorism by all means, even if human rights are restricted. Often this is a state-centered argument and political stability and order are valued. Military action on security is justified not by freedom but of value, only through order and stability. Military military measures are justified by country-based moral principles – order and stability. In addition, physical and moral hazards can be analyzed for security. If the first is of a mass nature, it is a security, if it is of a limited nature, then it is possible for the state to use its own criminal system. Moral hazard – this is a threat to democracy; the lives and wealth of those who live in democratic countries.
The philosophical analysis of security also has a second – cross-opposite view – that human rights and fundamental human freedoms are so important that no explanation for such values as security and order for military defense is justified. Preference is given to giving up threats (including terrorist threats) and not giving up human rights. Supporters of such views believe that a life without human rights is worthless at all.
All in all, we are confronting two competing values - order and freedom. The more freedom society has, the more it falls into anarchy and, conversely, if civil society decides to suppress freedom, then this society risks losing freedom. Some analysts have also called this contradiction a Hobbes Dilemma, where in fact both parties are stigmatizing their views on the issue of liberal security. When conservatives choose to restrict freedom by eliminating the threat, liberals (in different variations) protect human rights as the foundation of a just society, because human rights must be practically considered universal and absolute values.
There is also an intermediate – compromise position that argues against an unlimited argument for the use of security measures, but it is also agreed that there must be a balance and a clear boundary between human rights and security (pressure for order). Where exactly this limit goes, it is still difficult to define.
The apocalypse of Al Qaeda’s ideology and, more broadly, the existential threat of terrorism to mankind, has created a situation where a part of the world has been morally demonized into evil and the other democratically good. There is a situation where countries and peoples are protected (against terrorism) and attacked by universal values that, in one place or another, depending on the nation, its religion and culture, and its cultural values, need not be those for which the other party fights. What’s more, values can also be prioritized from the point of view of human rights, and so we get fundamental values such as the right to life, freedom from torture, cruelty, slavery, and so on. Some values are more important than others, but it may happen that by protecting one’s human rights, we are actually attacking others. Again, we get confused about what values are more important and what are the less important.
Summary
In conclusion, theoretical approaches to security depend on the processes taking place in the world and should describe new security policy directions. Unfortunately, in the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War theoretical confusion in defining the concept of security, political, sprawling normative documents were adopted in which the so-called extended concept of security was presented, and areas of concern to the world (humanity) were declared a security sphere. In some ways, the expression of the security aspect equated to presenting the most sacred basics, which was not customary to challenge, although in itself it was difficult to define the concept itself, and it was often avoided to define it at all. It is obvious that globalization is accompanied by a reduction in the role of states and governments. The share of other international players is increasing and the whole world is increasingly interdependent. This is also the case with security. While in the past decades, states, their security had been established, defined, concretized by governments as a threat of protection (ie military security, defense of the existence of the state), now we would have a very confusing image, or liberal security. It remains to be accepted by Buzani’s 15-year-old argument that the concept of security requires certain absolutism – security exists or does not exist. There is no intermediate scale. Most security concepts at the end of the twentieth century lack the core values of security, and if they have been brought to the attention of theorists in recent years due to the increased threat of terrorism, then is the conflict of the West’s own values - freedom or order? In today’s security field, there are more questions than answers.