scholarly journals Mapping Out the Possible Outcomes of the Security Dilemma in International Politics

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-62
Author(s):  
Er-Win Tan

This book includes a collection of debates on foreign policy from the works of Guicciardini, freshly translated with new commentary. This book brings together eleven pairs of opposing speeches on foreign policy written by Florentine statesman and historian Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540). Collectively, they constitute a remarkable collection of debates on war, peace, alliance, and more. Incisive and elegant, the debates contain an early formulation of concepts such as the balance of power and the security dilemma — ideas that are still in international politics today. This book highlights the importance of Guicciardini's work for the evolution of international theory and explains why he, alongside Machiavelli, should be considered a leading figure of Realism.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-62
Author(s):  
Er-Win Tan

Whilst a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of security dilemma theory, there is a gap in the academic literature concerning the possible scenarios that may result from this phenomenon in international politics. To date, no known systematic attempt has been made to consider the full range of scenarios that may result from the security dilemma. Six possible scenario outcomes may be identified, these being: first, the security dilemma is transcended; second, a security-seeking state leaves itself unilaterally vulnerable to external aggression; third, the inappropriate adoption of diplomatic and military assertiveness to reaffirm deterrence instead arouses the fears of another security-seeking state, thereby leading to inadvertent escalation of a crisis into a conflict; fourth, a ‘deep security dilemma’ based on long-running mutual hostility that does not escalate into conflict; fifth, a security dilemma that escalates to the brink of conflict but is then de-escalated; and sixth, mitigation of the security dilemma between rival states. This article will explore these respective scenarios in terms of their underpinnings, as well as their implications for security and diplomacy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Jervis

Throughout my life, politics and political science have been intertwined. I handed out leaflets for Adlai Stevenson at age 12, participated in protests at Oberlin and Berkeley, and, as I developed professional expertise, worked with national security agencies. Conflict has been a continuing interest, particularly whether situations are best analyzed as a security dilemma or aggression. In exploring this question, I was drawn into both political psychology and signaling, although the two are very different. I have continued to work on each and occasionally try to bring them together. My thinking about strategic interaction led to a book-length exploration of system effects, a way of thinking that I believe is still insufficiently appreciated in the discipline and among policy makers. My research continues to be stimulated by both developments in the discipline and unfolding international politics.


1997 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Christensen

While some structural realists and their liberal and institutionalist critics continue to fight a high-profile battle about the fundamental nature of international politics, a quieter discussion is progressing about how to integrate various aspects of realist thinking into a more coherent approach to security politics. The goal of this discussion is to marry the two major strands of contemporary realist thought: balance-of-power theory and security dilemma theory. Recent works advocate combining structural variables, such as the number of great actors in the system and the distribution of capabilities among them, with security dilemma variables, such as the comparative efficacy of offensive versus defensive doctrines given available weaponry and military training.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Stevens

John H. Herz (1908-2005) is better known for his theorisation of the security dilemma than for his conviction that human survival is threatened by the conditions of late modernity. This article explores extinction and survival in his work to interrogate his persistent characterisation as an incorrigible pessimist. In his preoccupation with extinction, Herz would seem a first-rank pessimist, but his intellectual commitments belie this easy categorisation. Specifically, his appeals to interdisciplinary ‘survival research’ suggest a qualified pessimism that does not foreclose on the potential of humankind to overcome structural, political and normative obstacles. This is consistent with current understandings of pessimism within the broader realist tradition. Herz expressed an ‘open’ and ‘linear’ temporality that challenges cyclical and linear-progressive temporalities inherent to realism and liberalism, respectively. Herz articulates, therefore, a ‘productive pessimism’ that charts a different path for pessimist thought beyond its pejorative connotations. This article contributes to the literature on classical realism, to a growing interest in Herz’s intellectual legacy, and to the developing appreciation of time and temporality in International Relations theory and practice. It also provides a foundation for rethinking our assumptions about pessimism and international politics.


Asian Survey ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document