scholarly journals The Changing Agenda of Military Security

Author(s):  
Barry Buzan
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Oksana Gaiduchok ◽  
◽  
Oleksiy Stupnytskyi ◽  

In modern times, it is believed that by reducing the risk of military intervention, military security has lost its relevance, and economic security has become a priority of national interests. The principle of economic security is as follows: national interests are supported through an economic system that supports free exchange and ensures the upward mobility of the nation. The analysis of economic security is based on the concept of national interests. It is well known that the problem of national security and its components cannot be considered only from the standpoint of current interests; it is closely related to the possibilities of their implementation over a significant, long-term period. Each stage of realization of national interests of the country is characterized by its assessment of its geopolitical, geostrategic and geoeconomic conditions, security threats and the main carriers of these threats, the mechanism of realization of national interests (each of the stages has its own assessment of the main definitions and categories of security, the main vectors of geoeconomic policy). Economic security is the foundation and material basis of national security. A state is in a state of security if it protects its own national interests and is able to defend them through political, economic, socio-psychological, military and other actions. There is a close connection between economic security and the system of national and state interests, and it is through this category that the problems of economic potential and economic power of the state, geopolitical and geoeconomic positions of the country in the modern world are intertwined. At a time when regional forces are trying to expand markets, provide access to finance and the latest technology, economic security has become a necessary component of the ability of regional forces to expand their influence. The article is devoted to the study of economic security of Ukraine and its components using the model of quantitative assessment of economic security of Ukraine. Using the Fishburne method, a model is built that allows to obtain an integrated assessment of the level of economic security based on the synthesis of nine partial indicators.


2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-175
Author(s):  
Jos Monballyu

Over de motieven waarom Belgische militairen tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog naar de Duitse vijand deserteerden is al veel geschreven. Volgens de Franstalige patriottische pers en literatuur van kort na de Eerste Wereldoorlog was die desertie uitsluitend te wijten aan de defaitistische ingesteldheid van de Vlaamse Frontbeweging en de talrijke aansporingen waarmee hun vier afgezanten naar de Duitsers (Jules Charpentier, Karel De Schaepdrijver, Vital Haesaert en Carlos Van Sante) de Vlaamse soldaten aan het IJzerfront bestookten. De Vlaamse historici probeerden die beschuldiging op allerlei manieren te weerleggen of schoven de verantwoordelijkheid voor die desertie in de schoenen van Antoon Pira en zijn Algemeen Vlaamsch Democratische Verbond. Geen enkele historicus ging daarbij na wat de deserteurs zelf over hun desertie naar de vijand te vertellen hadden. Dit deden zij nochtans uitvoerig tijdens de verschillende gerechtelijke ondervragingen waaraan zij na de oorlog werden onderworpen wanneer zij konden worden aangehouden. Het feit dat zij daarbij al strafbaar waren van zodra zij wetens en willens deserteerden ongeacht hun eigenlijke motief, liet hen daarbij toe om dit motief vrij complexloos mee te delen. Geen enkele van de overlopers van wie het strafdossier bewaard is, gaf echter toe dat hij omwille van de Vlaamse kwestie was overgelopen. Oorlogsmoeheid en de behoefte om zijn familieleden terug te zien waren, zoals in alle legers, de voornaamste motieven waarom zij naar de vijand deserteerden. Ook de Belgische Militaire Veiligheid en de krijgsauditeurs slaagden er trouwens niet in om een verband te leggen tussen de Vlaamse Frontbeweging en de Belgische deserties naar de vijand.________Desertion to the enemy in the Belgian front army during the First World War (part 2)Much has already been written about the reasons why Belgian soldiers deserted to the German enemy during the First World War. According to the French language patriotic press and literature dating from shortly after the First World War that desertion was exclusively due to the defeatist attitude of the Flemish Front Movement and the many exhortations with which their four representatives to the Germans (Jules Charpentier, Karel De Schaepdrijver, Vital Haesaert and Carlos Van Sante) bombarded the Flemish soldiers at the Yser Front. Flemish historians attempted in a variety of ways to refute that accusation or they shifted the responsibility for the desertion on to Antoon Pira and his Algemeen Vlaamsch Democratische Verbond (General Flemish Democratic Union). Not a single historian investigated what the deserters themselves had to say about their desertion to the enemy. However, the deserters gave extensive explanations during the detailed investigation that took place during the various judicial interrogations, to which they were submitted after the war if it was possible to arrest them. The fact that they were considered to have committed a criminal offence for having knowingly deserted whatever their actual motive, allowed them to communicate this motive without too many complexes. However, none of the defectors whose criminal records have been preserved admitted that he had defected for the sake of the Flemish Question.  As is the case in all armies, the main reasons for desertion to the enemy were war-weariness and the longing to see members of their family. The Belgian Military Security and the military auditors were not able either to establish a causal link between the Flemish Front Movement and the Belgian desertions to the enemy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Pietruska

This article examines the mutually reinforcing imperatives of government science, capitalism, and American empire through a history of the U.S. Weather Bureau's West Indian weather service at the turn of the twentieth century. The original impetus for expanding American meteorological infrastructure into the Caribbean in 1898 was to protect naval vessels from hurricanes, but what began as a measure of military security became, within a year, an instrument of economic expansion that extracted climatological data and produced agricultural reports for American investors. This article argues that the West Indian weather service was a project of imperial meteorology that sought to impose a rational scientific and bureaucratic order on a region that American officials considered racially and culturally inferior, yet relied on the labor of local observers and Cuban meteorological experts in order to do so. Weather reporting networks are examined as a material and symbolic extension of American technoscientific power into the Caribbean and as a knowledge infrastructure that linked the production of agricultural commodities in Cuba and Puerto Rico to the world of commodity exchange in the United States.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Grossman

Section 4 of the [Immigration Ordinance 1971] effectively exiles the Ilois from the territory where they are belongers and forbids their return. But the ‘peace, order, and good government’ of any territory means nothing, surely, save by reference to the territory's population. They are to be governed, not removed. … These people are subjects of the Crown, in right of their British nationality as belongers in the Chagos Archipelago. As Chitty said in 1820, the Queen has an interest in all her subjects, who rightly look to the Crown—today, to the rule of law which is given in the Queen's name—for the security of their homeland within the Queen's dominions. But in this case they have been excluded from it. It has been done for high political reasons: good reasons, certainly, dictated by pressing considerations of military security. But they are not reasons which may reasonably be said to touch the peace, order and good government of [the British Indian Ocean Territory].1


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Łukasz Jureńczyk

The paper provides reflections on NATO’s London Summit held on 3 and 4 December 2019 in the context of Poland’s military security. The paper is divided into an introduction, six sections, and a conclusion. The first section is devoted to issues of formation, functioning, and disintegration of alliances from the perspective of the theory of defensive structural realism and explains the methodological assumptions of the paper. The second section presents the atmosphere as prevailed before and during the Summit, which significantly impacted its process. The following sections are devoted to the main problems raised during the Summit from the perspective of Poland’s military security. The first involved the approval of Poland and the Baltic states’ defense plans together with a discussion on the danger of their blocking by the Turkish delegation. Another issue was the symbolic and practical confirmation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty’s significance in the perspective of the approach to Russia’s threat. The next two problems concerned the level of Member States’ defense spending and the vision of strengthening the EU’s defense potential. The paper’s main thesis is that the decisions of the NATO Summit in London have had a positive impact on Poland’s military security. However, the climate and discussions that accompanied the Summit also brought a great deal of uncertainty and revealed a growing gap between allies concerning various issues.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-237
Author(s):  
Lothar Brock

Whether or not, and how, ‘security’ and ‘peace’ go together has always been an issue of discussion among peace researchers. The focus on peace instead of on (military) security was constitutive for early German ‘critical peace research’. The inception of S+F can be regarded as an attempt to bridge the divide between peace and security studies. In this regard, the title of the journal was programmatic. It served a useful purpose when, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, peace research (with important exceptions, of course) tended to move towards critical security studies combined with a reductionist understanding of peace as ‘comprehensive security’ and as a label on a tool box for civil conflict management (in the ‘new wars’). In this context, S+F reminded the community of the need to maintain the distinction between peace and security. The journal also offered the space for debating this distinction in terms of the different logics of peace and security.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document