Introduction
This essay explores the relevance of traditional theories, namely Realism and Liberalism, in explaining key issues within Security Studies, a critical subfield of International Relations. Security Studies focuses on the nature of threats, state sovereignty, and international cooperation in addressing global and regional insecurities. Realism, with its emphasis on power and state-centric security, and Liberalism, which prioritises cooperation and institutional frameworks, offer foundational lenses through which to analyse pressing concerns such as military conflicts and transnational threats. This discussion will examine how these theories illuminate issues like state security and international peacekeeping, while acknowledging their limitations. The essay argues that, despite evolving security challenges, both Realism and Liberalism remain useful in providing structured insights into the complexities of security dynamics.
Realism and the Primacy of State Security
Realism, a dominant paradigm in International Relations, asserts that states are the primary actors in an anarchic international system, driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power (Morgenthau, 1948). In Security Studies, Realism is particularly useful in explaining why military power and national defence remain central to state behaviour. For instance, the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea demonstrate how states prioritise territorial integrity and resource control, often escalating military presence to deter rivals. Realism’s focus on the balance of power helps to interpret such actions as rational responses to perceived threats, where securing national interests supersedes collective security.
Moreover, Realism provides a framework for understanding why states often distrust multilateral security arrangements, preferring self-reliance over dependence on allies. The theory’s emphasis on the inevitability of conflict, rooted in human nature and systemic anarchy, remains relevant when analysing persistent rivalries, such as between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. However, Realism’s state-centric approach struggles to account for non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, which have become significant security threats in the 21st century. Despite this limitation, its explanatory power regarding interstate conflict and military strategy retains significant value in Security Studies (Waltz, 1979).
Liberalism and the Role of Cooperation
In contrast, Liberalism offers an optimistic view of international security, emphasising cooperation through institutions and shared norms (Keohane, 1984). This theory is particularly useful in explaining the role of international organisations like the United Nations in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. For example, UN peacekeeping missions in regions such as the Balkans during the 1990s illustrate how collective security mechanisms can mitigate violence and stabilise post-conflict areas. Liberalism’s focus on interdependence and mutual benefit helps to explain why states might prioritise diplomatic solutions over military confrontation in certain contexts.
Furthermore, Liberalism provides insight into the growing importance of non-traditional security issues, such as climate change and pandemics, which require global cooperation. The Paris Agreement of 2015, aimed at addressing climate change, embodies Liberal principles of shared responsibility and institutional collaboration. Nevertheless, Liberalism can be critiqued for its over-optimism, as it often underestimates the persistence of power politics and state rivalries that hinder cooperation. Despite this, its focus on institutional frameworks remains a vital tool for understanding contemporary security governance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both Realism and Liberalism offer valuable perspectives for analysing key issues in Security Studies. Realism’s emphasis on power and state security provides a robust explanation for military conflicts and territorial disputes, while Liberalism’s focus on cooperation and institutions sheds light on peacekeeping and responses to transnational challenges. Although each theory has limitations—Realism’s neglect of non-state actors and Liberalism’s idealism—they collectively enrich our understanding of the multifaceted nature of security. Indeed, their continued relevance lies in their ability to frame complex problems, offering students and policymakers structured ways to address both traditional and emerging threats. Arguably, integrating insights from both theories could enhance approaches to global and regional security in an increasingly interconnected world.
References
- Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
