ABSTRACT
Defining security 2
The international political agenda 14
The securitization of issues 16
Key points 21
Notes 21
Recommended reading 22
Useful web links 22
. . . only freedom can make security secure. Karl Popper (Popper 1966: 130)
The study of security in the global context is a sub-discipline of the wider subject usually still referred to as International Relations. International Relations is the study of all political interactions between international ‘actors’, which include: states (represented by governments), international organizations (either intergovernmental or non-governmental1) and, to a lesser extent, some wealthy, private individuals. Security Studies concerns itself with a sub-set of those political interactions marked by their particular importance in terms of maintaining the security of the actors and people. Where the line demarking International Relations’ sub-discipline is to be drawn is increasingly contentious, as indeed is the demarcation of International Relations in relation to the wider realm of Political Science. Increased political interaction between actors, other than through the traditional state-to-state route, has served to blur the distinction between domestic and foreign policy and widened the scope of International Relations. The process commonly referred to as globalization has led to internal political issues becoming increasingly externalized and external political issues increasingly internalized. Traditionally domestic policy concerns, like health and rights, are more prominent than ever on the global political agenda and events occurring in other states, such as disasters or massacres, are more often than ever deemed to be of political significance for people not personally affected. In light of these changes, and the reduced prevalence of inter-state war, it has become a matter of contention amongst theorists of International Relations whether Security Studies should maintain its traditional emphasis on military threats to the security of states or widen its focus. Alternative perspectives have argued increasingly that the discipline should either: (1) extend its reach to include non-military threats to states and, perhaps, other actors; or (2) go further and bring within its remit the security of all actors in relation to a range of threats, both military and non-military.
