Current Security Issues in International Relations

2019 ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Lyons

Aside from language, students of international relations in the United States and Great Britain have several things in common: parallel developments in the emergence of international relations as a field of study after World War I, and more recent efforts to broaden the field by drawing security issues and changes in the international political economy under the broad umbrella of “international studies.” But a review of four recent books edited by British scholars demonstrates that there is also a “distance” between British and American scholarship. Compared with dominant trends in the United States, the former, though hardly monolithic and producing a rich and varied literature, is still very much attached to historical analysis and the concept of an “international society” that derives from the period in modern history in which Britain played a more prominent role in international politics. Because trends in scholarship do, in fact, reflect national political experience, the need continues for transnational cooperation among scholars in the quest for strong theories in international relations.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-87
Author(s):  
Jeong-Yong Kim

This article presents the model of 'business-track diplomacy' to test a state's utilization of economic engagement strategy as security policy. The model provides ways to think around security issues and alternative security options that go beyond the traditional military containment approach to security in international relations. As a case study, the article investigates Hyundai Group's Mountain Kumgang tourism with North Korea. In this case study, it demonstrates that not only the Kim Dae-Jung government's strong policy-making will of business-track diplomacy towards North Korea but also the Hyundai Group's business will and vulnerability of the North Korean economy played important roles in realizing the tour project and thus, enhanced inter-Korean economic cooperation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-54
Author(s):  
Marzena Czernicka

Security issues have always been one of the main points of interest of all states. Scientifically, this issue can be researched using a wide range of perspectives. Security studies use much from the general theory of international relations. The field uses theoretical paradigms and concrete methods of research. In this article, a wide approach to the issue of security and security policy is presented. In accordance with the theoretical-methodological foundation of realist and liberal theories, this article inquires in what way research concerning the issues of security and security policy of contemporary states can be conducted.


2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 461-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfrid Greaves

While international relations has increasingly begun to recognize the political salience of Indigenous peoples, the related field of security studies has not significantly incorporated Indigenous peoples either theoretically or empirically. This article helps to address this gap by comparing two Arctic Indigenous peoples – Inuit in Canada and Sámi in Norway – as ‘securitizing actors’ within their respective states. It examines how organizations representing Inuit and Sámi each articulate the meaning of security in the circumpolar Arctic region. It finds that Inuit representatives have framed environmental and social challenges as security issues, identifying a conception of Arctic security that emphasizes environmental protection, preservation of cultural identity, and maintenance of Indigenous political autonomy. While there are some similarities between the two, Sámi generally do not employ securitizing language to discuss environmental and social issues, rarely characterizing them as existential issues threatening their survival or wellbeing. Drawing on securitization theory, this article proposes three factors to explain why Inuit have sought to construct serious challenges in the Arctic as security issues while Sámi have not: ecological differences between the Canadian and Norwegian Arctic regions, and resulting differences in experience of environmental change; the relative degree of social inclusion of Inuit and Sámi within their non-Indigenous majority societies; and geography, particularly the proximity of Norway to Russia, which results in a more robust conception of national security that restricts space for alternative, non-state security discourses. This article thus links recent developments in security studies and international relations with key trends in Indigenous politics, environmental change, and the geopolitics of the Arctic region.


2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 2387-2415 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHY POWERS ◽  
GARY GOERTZ

AbstractThe international relations literature on regionalism, both in economic and security issues, has grown dramatically over the last 15 years. One of the ongoing issues discussed in most articles and books is the conceptualisation of ‘region’. Instead of thinking about regions using notions of interdependence and interaction we take a social constructivist approach, whereby states themselves define regions via the construction of regional economic institutions (REI). We explore how a conceptualisation of region based on REIs contrasts with various related concepts such as regional system, and regional IGO. Empirically, we show that most all countries belong to at least one important regional economic institution, REI, (for example, EU, Mercosur, ASEAN, etc). In short, the world is dividing itself into regions by the creation of regional economic institutions. We contrast our economic-institutional approach to regions with Buzan and Wæver's ‘regional security complexes’ which is based on security dependence. There are interesting agreements and disagreements between their approach and our economic-institutional approach to defining regions. It is perhaps not surprising that many REIs have taken on security roles, which we briefly show by looking at military alliances embedded in REIs. This suggests that policymakers are creating regions through institutional innovations that link economic and security issues.


1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin O. Fordham

Although it is widely acknowledged that economic interests influence the politics of trade policy, most research on international relations treats security issues differently. Do conflicting economic interests shape political debate over foreign policy even when security issues are highly salient? To answer this question, I test a range of hypotheses about conflicting interests in the economic stakes of U.S. foreign policy during the early Cold War era. I present evidence that economic interests in their home states were closely related to senators' voting patterns on foreign policy issues. These patterns hold across economic and security issues. I also find that political parties play an important mediating role, making senators more or less receptive to various economic interests.


1992 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 179-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Joseph Smith

The three books reviewed in this essay, Morality Among Nations: An Evolutionary View (Mary Maxwell), Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age (Joel H. Rosenthal), and Securing Europe (Richard H. Ullman), in some sense represent a reaction to Reagan's ideological policies. Maxwell's book appeals to the sociobiological nature of international morality. Rosenthal's book invites the reader to consider the valid view of the realist model as a venue toward integration of morals with decision making in international relations. Ullman's main premise is that the disintegration of the Soviet empire and reunification of Germany gave a strong impetus for the European states to seek a common ground in all areas through cooperation, particularly on security issues.


Author(s):  
Rebecca Best

Traditionally, women have been viewed as having little agency in wars and conflicts. Women were thought neither to cause the wars nor to fight them. When women were considered at all by scholars of war, they were conceived of primarily as victims. As women gained the franchise and ultimately began to be elected into political office in advanced democracies, some scholars began to consider the foreign policy implications of this—that is, do women’s attitudes toward war and defense policy differ from those of men and do these views produce different outcomes at the ballot box? Furthermore, do women behave differently with regard to security issues once in national office? Does their presence change the way their male colleagues vote on these issues? In recent decades, scholarship emerging first from critical feminist theory and later from positivist political scientists has begun to look more explicitly for women’s roles, experiences, and influences on and in conflict. This work has led to the recognition that, even when victimized in war, women have agency, and to the parallel conclusion that men’s agency is not as complete as scholars, practitioners, and the public have often assumed. This bibliography provides an overview of the development of women and conflict literature as well as several prominent themes and questions within the literature. It is of necessity incomplete and interested scholars are encouraged to review related articles in Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations, such as “Feminist Security Studies” by Kristen P. Williams, and “Women and Peacemaking/Peacekeeping” by Sabrina Karim and Kyle Beardsley.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-32
Author(s):  
Peter S. Henne

There are very serious ethical and pragmatic issues in the quantitative and security study of Muslims. From an ethical perspective, many of these studies denigrate and stereotype Muslims. They also treat them as a problem to be solved, justifying and expanding US power. Pragmatically, it can be hard to collect detailed data on security issues in many Muslim countries, making conventional studies difficult. Yet, standard approaches to these problems are faulty. We cannot abandon positivist analysis, as well-done quantitative studies are actually the best tools we have to push back on negative stereotypes of Muslims. At the same time, we cannot ignore important security topics among Muslim states just because the data we have available is not ideal. Instead, I present a two-pronged approach that can address these issues without ignoring crucial aspects of international relations; scholars should follow best methodological practices to avoid ethical issues, and adopt new standards and novel tools to deal with imperfect data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document