ABSTRACT
The term ‘security dilemma’ describes a familiar predicament experienced by decision-makers in a world already overflowing with dilemmas. Despite its ubiquity, our claim is that the concept has been invariably misconceived by academic theorists, yet – properly understood – it should be regarded as one of the most fundamental concepts in security studies, and as such should be at the centre of a reformed agenda of this field (see Booth and Wheeler 2008). The security dilemma is a foundational concept because, above all, it engages with the existential condition of uncertainty that characterizes all human
relations, not least those interactions in the biggest and most violent arena of all – international politics. That its significance has not been properly recognized has been the result of orthodox thinking failing to give due credit to the work and insights of its major early theorists (John H. Herz and Herbert Butterfield, and later Robert Jervis) and at the same time missing the opportunity (as a result of paradigm blinkers) to appreciate the extent of the theoretical and practical horizons it opens up. Our claim is that an understanding of the dynamics and potentialities involved in thinking about the security dilemma gets to the heart of the central questions of security studies.
