INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND SECURITY

Nicoleta LAAN
Vasile Goldi Western University of Arad
Faculty of Humanities, Politics and Administrative Sciences, Arad
Tel: 0040-257-282324 E-mail: nicoclau2000@yahoo.com
Abstract
Security has been and will be an essential preoccupation of state leaders, at least
until the division of the international system in states remains in place. Analyzing
the international relations theory, it becomes obvious that there is no universal
accepted definition of security. Each international relations theory/approach uses
and promotes its own definition of security. The paper aims to present and analyze
the ways in which the main theories of international relations have understood to
define security. Besides the theories that dominate international relations, realism
and liberalism, other theories such as socio-constructivism, the Copenhagen
School, feminist approaches, critical theories and postmodernist approaches are
taken into account.
Keywords: security, realism, liberalism, socio-constructivism

NEOREALISM / NEOLIBERALISM AND SECURITY

Neo-realism is the revised version of realism, and in spite of the evolutions
from the international relations that were thought to lead to the demise of realism
as main theory of international relations, this approach continues to dominate the
field. The classical vision upon security overlaps with the realist vision upon
security, and the starting point of the realist theory is the nature of the international
system, which is anarchic, meaning that at the level of the international system
there is no executive authority superior to the state to regulate its behavior (Miroiu,
Soare, 2006, 103). As such, states, as the main actors in international relations,
have the task to ensure on their own their survival at the international level through
a constant accumulation of power.
The main representative of realism is Hans Morgenthau, who in Politics
among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace presents the six main principals
of political realism, as it follows:
a. International politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in
human nature;
b. The state interest is defined in terms of power;
c. The interest defined in terms of power is an objective category, universally valid,
but without a fix and final meaning;
d. The universal moral cannot be applied to the actions of national states in their
abstract form, but need to be filtered taking into account the concrete
circumstances of space and time;
39

Nicoleta Laan - International Relations Theory and Security

e. There needs to be done a clear distinction between the moral aspirations at some
time of one nation and moral laws;
f. The principles of realism maintain the autonomy of the political sphere from all
the other spheres that need to be subordinated to it (Morgenthau, 2006, 4-15).
Realism continued to dominate the security studies in the contemporary
period, in the modern form of neorealism. According to this theory, the end of the
Cold War did not lead to a change of the concept of security. Kenneth Waltz, the
main representative of realism, underlies in its main work, The International
Political Theory, the importance of the structure of the international system, and of
their security (Waltz, 2006). The end of the Cold War did not lead to a change of
this structure, which is anarchy, while the world is still one of constant competition
between states.
There are some crucial differences, as noticed by Steven Lamy in his
analysis, between the neorealism of Waltz and its predecessor, the classical realism
of Morgenthau. Firstly, realism is an inductive theory, which explains the
international politics through the analysis of interactions and actions of states in the
international system, while for neorealism the structure of the international system,
the anarchy, is the one that determines the options of states for their external
policy. Secondly, if in classical realism power is in itself an objective, in
neorealism power represents not only an objective but also a mean.
The third difference refers to the way in which states react to the state of
anarchy at the international level. As such, for realists anarchy is a condition of the
system, and states react to this state depending on their size, location, domestic
power, and leader capacities, while for neorealists, anarchy defines the system,
constrains the actions of all states in an equal measure (Lamy, 2005, 208-9).
Despite these differences and despite the existence of more types of realism, there
are some topics which remain constant, such as: the assumption according to which
states are the main actors in international relations and their central preoccupation
is to ensure their own security (Jervis, 1998, 980).
Having in mind the changes that took place at the international level, it is
important to mention also some aspects related to the more and more encountered
phenomenon of international cooperation. If neoliberals, as we shall see, emphasize
the importance of international organizations in limiting the state of anarchy at the
international level and consequently the incidence of war, for neorealists
cooperation through international organizations is on the second place (Niou, 1991,
481).War is a constant state at the international level, while cooperation, although
not impossible, is temporary because state are always concerned about the relative
and not the absolute gains. This means that the states will choose not to cooperate
when there is a possibility for another state to obtain more in relative terms, as this
could hurt their own security.
John Baylis also noticed that there is a difference in what regards the
importance of international organizations and cooperation between pessimist
neorealists, which consider that the motives that make cooperation difficult are the
40

The Public Administration and Social Policies Review

IV Year, No. 2(9) / December 2012

risk of being cheated and the concern for relative gains, and the optimist neoralists,
in the opinion of which cooperation is not only possible but could also have an
important role in maintaining the security of a state (Baylis, 2008, 497-98).
Moreover, the pessimist do not consider that international organizations could have
a role in preventing war, since they are the creation of states, while optimists
consider that through international cooperation there can be created and maintained
the international security (for more details on offensive and defensive realism see
Drdal, 2006, 127-138).
In what regards the influence that globalization could have upon states,
realists consider that these continue to be the most important actors, states being
the only ones capable to manage the effects of globalization, although they
recognize that up to a certain level the influence of states was reduced by
transnational movements (Lamy, 2005, 218). There are also criticisms expressed
towards the realist theory, among which: the lack of a definition of security, the
refusal of realists to extend the concept towards other fields on the reason that any
extension would make the concept incoherent (Krause, 1996, 230), and the
impossibility to explain the role of non-state actors in ensuring security.
On the other side, neoliberalism, the second theory of international
relations as importance, is the successor of liberalism. For liberals, international
peace and security can be ensured through international law, international
organizations, political integration and democratization. Neoliberalism starts from
the assumption that there is cooperation between states at the international level,
through institutions. Furthermore, the institutions are defined by Robert Keohane,
one of the most prominent representatives of neoliberalism, as persistent and
connected set of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles,
constrain activity, and shape expectations (Keohane, 1989, 3).
One of the main ideas of neoliberalism can be summarized as being:
anarchy is the structure that characterizes the international system, but this is
limited by cooperation through international institutions. According to this theory,
states are the main actors at the international level, but not the only ones, as the
intergovernmental organizations as well as non-state actors complete this image,
while power remains the main concern of state but this does not mean that states
always search for power (Drdal, 2006, 141).
Regarding the debate between the two main theories of international
relations, neorealism and neoliberalism, it is important to emphasize that while
neorealism concentrates on war and security problems, neoliberalism analyzes
issues such as cooperation, economic relations between states and international
politics. The institutions have an important role in the neoliberal vision in ensuring
international security in comparison with neorealists, and, for neoliberals
institutions can be represented by formal as well as informal arrangements between
states. Neoliberals consider that states have common interests and as such, they can
cooperate. From this perspective, important for states are the absolute and not the
relative gains, in contrast with the neorealist view. According to neoliberals, the
41

Nicoleta Laan - International Relations Theory and Security

international institutions offer advantages such as providing information, reducing

the costs of transactions, credible arrangements. These cannot limit the incidence
of war but can contribute to the raise of the level of cooperation between states.
There are still common points between the two theories, the neorealism
and neoliberalism. Firstly, both consider the international system as being anarchic,
and both consider that the institutional structure, cooperation and coordination in
international relations are endogenous, meaning that they are products of the
actions of the systems constituent parts. Secondly, both theories consider states as
being unitary actors and as being the main constituent parts of the international
system. Finally, states are considered by both theories to be rational actors that act
strategically in international relations (Niou, 1991, 483).
CONSTRUCTIVISM AND SECURITY
Socio-constructivism emerged at the beginning of the 90s, once the
international relations analysts realized that the dominant theories of neorealism
and neoliberalism cannot explain the changes at the international level, such as the
end of the Cold War. From a general point of view, it can be appreciated that socioconstructivism is not a theory but an approach which is based in the idea that
international relations are socially constructed (Karacasulu, Uzgoren, 2007, 29).
The term constructivism was introduced in international relations in 1989 by
Nicholas Onuf, but lately this approach was developed mainly by Alexander
Wendt. Nowadays, socio-constructivism is a largely accepted approach. Its
popularity is a consequence of the following factors: the end of the Cold War, the
importance of identity problems in contemporary international relations, the
disappointment on big theories of international relations and the importance
attributed to the material issues and hard security issues in international relations
(Toderean, Apahideanu, 2006, 156).
There are more types of socio-constructivist approaches in international
relations. The specialty literature makes a distinction between conventional and
critical socio-constructivism, between interpretative and positivist socioconstructivism, but also a classification of socio-constructivists according to the
level of analysis taken into account. Despite these differences, there are some
assumptions that stay at the basis of all socio-constructivist works, and these are:
1. Social factors influence human interaction;
2. Social structures help at constituting the interests and identities of actors;
3. The agents and structures mutually constitute each other (Frederking, 2003,
364).
In what regards security, the main idea of socio-constructivists is that
security is not an objective condition, that threats to security do not represent only
an issue of correct perception of more material forces, and that the object of
security is not stable or unchanging (Krause, 1996, 242). In other words, socioconstructivists do not see security as being something that exists somewhere and
waits to be discovered and analyzed by analysts and theoreticians, but see security
42

The Public Administration and Social Policies Review

IV Year, No. 2(9) / December 2012

as being constructed and re-constructed through intersubjective human

understandings (Smith, 2002, 7). Surely, the socio-constructivist approaches extend
and deepen the concept of security, and in this sense we cannot but mention some
important differences named in the literature between the vision of security
common to socio-constructivists and the security approach in the rationalist
theories.
1. Constructivists prefer a social ontology in comparison with the rationalism
favored by the individualist ontology. Consequently, socio-constructivism does not
regard international relations from the perspective of the international structure of
power, but is instead concerned by the impact that norms, identities, and strategic
cultures have upon international security.
2. The rational understanding of power is narrow and usually materialist. On the
other side, constructivists consider socially constructed knowledge as being a
factor of power that affects the states interests and identities.
3. Constructivists consider that states try to make what is adequate in a certain
situation and not what is rational in order to maximize their benefits.
4. While for realists the interests are pre-determined and fixed, constructivists
consider that the actors interests are redefined during interaction.
5. Rationalists emphasize the regulatory rules that govern the existent activities and
behavior, while constructivists underlined the importance of constitutive rules that
create new actors, interest and types of actions.
6. For constructivists, security and the threats to security are neither objective nor
fixed, but socially constructed.
7. Anarchy, sovereignty, and identities are socially constructed and can be
modified in time, while the main theories of international relations consider these
terms as being perennial (Karacasulu, Uzgoren, 2007, 37-8).
The identities and interests that rationalists take as fixed and which they
consider as resulting in the international politics that we see today, are not fixed or
given in fact, but are created by us. Since we created them, we are also capable of
changing them, although this process can be a difficult one as we have internalized
the world as it is.
Despite the advantages offered by socio-constructivism in what regards the
study of security, we cannot but mention also some weak points of this new
approach in international relations. As such, Ted Hopf considers that the main
weaknesses of socio-constructivism are: the impossibility for a cultural theory to
replace a theory of politics and the lack of specificity concerning some terms used
by this approach, among which norms and values, which lead to the absence of a
causal theory of identity (Hopf, 1998, 196-8). Olivia Toderean emphasizes other
critics towards this approach: the lack of unity and coherence of socioconstructivism due to its wish to become a middle ground between rationalist and
reflectivist approaches in international relations, its excessive methodological
diversity and the incipient state in the development of this approach (Toderean,
2006, 162).
43

Nicoleta Laan - International Relations Theory and Security

OTHER THEORIES/APPROACHES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AND SECURITY
Marxism, as theory of international relations comprises a series of
approaches, from the imperialism of Lenin to the dependency theory of Raul
Prebisch, and the system theory developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. The common
elements of all Marxist theories can be summarized as being: holistic thinking,
materialist vision upon history, the conflict between classes, the idea that classes
are the main actors in international relations and not the nation states (Ungureanu,
2006, 115-6). Regarding security, Marxists consider that all the international
events, either wars, treaties or international aid actions, are determined by the
structure of global capitalism (Hobden, Wyn Jones, 2005, 227).
Also in the context of socio-constructivism we have to take into account
the vision of the representatives of the Copenhagen School regarding security. The
Copenhagen School has its roots in the work of Barry Buzan entitled People, States
and Fear: The Problem of National Security in International Relations, published
for the first time in 1983. The Copenhagen School agrees with the other approaches
that extend the concept of security beyond the military classical field so as to
include new objects of reference for security, Barry Buzan identifying in 1983 five
domains of security: military, political, economic, social and environmental.
As confessed by Buzan himself, the Copenhagen School constructs a more
radical vision of security studies by exploring the threats to the reference objects
and securitization of these threats, which are non-military as well as military
(Buzan, 1997, 13). Any problem can become an issue of security when leaders start
talking about it in terms of existential threat to some valuable reference objects.
The Copenhagen School puts a special emphasis on the social aspects of
security and on the independent identity and the functional integrity of states. This
school of thought considers the difference between state and society as being the
starting point for restructuring security studies, so as for the duality of the concept
of security to be accepted: a combination of state security, concerned with
sovereignty, and of societal security, concerned with identity (Goetschel, 2000,
226). At the same time, in the opinion of the representatives of this theoretical
approach the role of state in ensuring security will decrease while the international
cooperation is useful because national securities are interdependent, and through
cooperation we get to mature anarchy as structure of the international system.
If the Copenhagen School focuses on societal studies, the critical studies
emphasize the security of the individual. The critical security studies focuse on the
way in which the existent relations and institutions emerged and what can be done
to change them (Baylis, 2005, 313). According to this approach of international
relations, a change from the centre of analysis state to the center of analysis
individual should take place, as states are mostly not a solution to the problem but a
part of the problem. Moreover, from the perspective of this theory, security can
best be ensured through emancipation, understood as liberty of the individuals and
of all types of groups.
44

The Public Administration and Social Policies Review

IV Year, No. 2(9) / December 2012

Although critical studies and socio-constructivism share some assumptions

related to the actors of international relations, the changing nature of world politics,
the importance of intersubjective understandings, mutually constituency of agents
and structures, there are also differences between these approaches, as noticed also
by Ted Hopf (Hopf, 1998, 182-5), and these are:
- socio-constructivism is more conventional in methodology and
epistemology in comparison with critical studies;
- socio-constructivism wishes to discover reproductive social identities
and practices and to offer an explanation for the way in which
identities imply some actions, while critical studies wish to bring to
surface these identities, not to articulate their effects, but to analyze the
way in which people come to believe in a single version of truth;
- socio-constructivists maintain a difference between actors and
observers while in critical study this separation does not take place;
- socio-constructivists offer a cognitive version upon identity, while
critical theoreticians are more inclined to consider that alienation
determines the need for identity;
- finally, critical theoreticians, in comparison with socio-constructivists,
are more interested in power relations and try to bring to the surface
the power relations, taking into account that power is exercised in each
social exchange.
Feminist approaches have entered on the arena of international relations at
the end of the last century, and have come to include more approaches. In the
opinion of some authors, there are four types of feminist approaches in
international relations, namely the standpoint feminist theory, liberal feminism,
post-modern feminism and marxist feminism (Smith, 2002, 8), while other authors
would add two more types of feminism: critical theory feminism and constructivist
feminism (Toderean, 2006, 165-77). The common idea of all these approaches is
that international relations are strongly affected by gender in their consequences
but also in the forms of identification and subjectivities that they constitute, and
still the discipline does not see that it is affected by gender. In other words, security
was written and practiced from the male point of view, but a female point of view
would only enrich the security studies and make the world more peaceful.
Post-modernist security studies underline the role of identity, discourse and
narration in the analysis of security. As in the case of critical studies, the main
reference object should not be the state, but non-state actors, from individuals to
cultural and ethnic groups, regional blocs, nongovernmental organizations,
including multinational corporations and the security of individuals is clearly
superior to that of the state (Sarcinski, 2005, 11). The aim of the theoreticians
included in this category is to replace the realist discourse and thinking, because
there cannot be only one reality, the realist reality, and to introduce a new thinking
based on cooperation norms, so as for the world to become more peaceful.
45

Nicoleta Laan - International Relations Theory and Security

CONCLUSION
Despite the evolutions on the international arena and although new
international relations approaches have emerged in the last decades, realism
continues to dominate the security studies in the contemporary period, in the
modern form of neorealism. According to this theory, the end of the Cold War did
not lead to a change of the concept of security. On the other side, neoliberalism, the
second theory of international relations as importance, is the successor of
liberalism. For liberals, international peace and security can be ensured through
international law, international organizations, political integration and
democratization.
The dominance of systemic theories in the field of international relations
did not impede the emergence of approaches that have as an aim not to solve the
problems but to understand them, to analyze the way in which they appeared and
which put the accent on the role of common knowledge and understanding of
security. Moreover, the center of analysis for the new international relations
approaches seems to be changing from the state to the individual. The state security
is important but even more important is the security of the individual. Although
these new approaches have come a long way in the last decades, more time is
needed for them to replace realism as a main theory of international relations, that
is if they will succeed in this venture ever.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. BAYLIS, John, International and Global Security in the Post-Cold War
Era, in The Globalization of World Politics edited by John BAYLIS and
Steven SMITH, 3rd edition, Oxford Universiy Press, New York, 2005, pp.
297-324.
2. BAYLIS, John, The Concept of Security in International Relations, in
Globalization and Environment Challenges, edited by H.G. BRAUCH, U.
SPRING, C. MESJASZ, J. GRIN, P. DUNAY, N.C. BEHERA, B.
CHOUROU, P. KAMERI-MBOTE, P.H. LIOTTA, Springer Berlin
Hidelberg, Berlin, 2008, pp. 495-502.
3. BUZAN, Barry, Rethinking Security after the Cold War, in Cooperation
and Conflict, No. 32 (1997), pp. 518.
4. DRDAL, Lucian-Dumitru, Neoliberalismul, in Manual de relaii
internaionale (Handbook of International Relations) edited by Andrei
MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti, 2006,
pp. 139-154.
5. DRDAL, Lucian-Dumitru, Neorealismul, in Manual de relaii
internaionale (Handbook of International Relations) edited by Andrei
MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti, 2006,
pp. 127-138.
46

The Public Administration and Social Policies Review

IV Year, No. 2(9) / December 2012

6. FREDERKING, Brian, Constructing Post-Cold War Collective Security, in

The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 3 (2003), pp. 363378.
7. GOETSCHEL, Laurent, Globalisation and Security: the Challenge of
Collective Action in a Political Fragmented World, in Global Society, Vol.
14, No. 2 (2000), pp. 259-277.
8. HOBDEN, Stephen; Richard WYN JONES, Marxist Theories of
International Relations, in The Globalization of World Politics edited by
John BAYLIS and Steven SMITH, 3rd edition, Oxford Universiy Press,
New York, 2005, pp. 225-250.
9. HOPF, Ted, The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations
Theory, in International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1998), pp. 171-200.
10. JERVIS, Robert, Realism in the Study of World Politics, in International
Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (1998), pp. 971-991.
11. KARACASULU, Nilufer; Elif UZGOREN, Explaining Social
Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies, in Perception (SummerFall 2007), pp. 27-48.
12. KEOHANE, Robert, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in
International Relations Theory, Wesview Press, Boulder, 1989.
13. KRAUSE, Keith, Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and
Methods, in Mershon International Studies Review, No. 40 (1996), pp.
229-254.
14. LAMY, Steven L., Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-Realism
and Neo-Liberalism, in The Globalization of World Politics edited by John
BAYLIS and Steven SMITH, 3rd edition, Oxford Universiy Press, New
York, 2005, pp. 205-224.
15. MIROIU, Andrei; Simona SOARE, Realismul, in Manual de relaii
internaionale (Handbook of International Relations) edited by Andrei
MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti, 2006,
pp. 209-221.
16. MORGENTHAU, Hans J., Politics among nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, 7th edition, Mc-Graw Higher Education, Boston, 2006.
17. NIOU, Emerson M.S., Realism versus Neoliberalism: A Formulation, in
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1991), pp. 481-511.
18. SARCINSKI, Alexandra, Dimensiunile nonmilitare ale securitii, Editura
Universitii Naionale de Aprare Carol I, Bucureti, 2005.
19. SMITH, Steve, The Concept of Security in a Globalized World. Paper
presented at the conference organized at Otago University, June 2002.
20. TODEREAN, Olivia, Constructivismul n relaiile internaionale, in
Manual de relaii internaionale (Handbook of International Relations)
edited by Andrei MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian UNGUREANU, Polirom,
Bucureti, 2006, pp. 155-163.
47

Nicoleta Laan - International Relations Theory and Security

21. TODEREAN, Olivia, Feminismul n relaiile internaionale, in Manual de

relaii internaionale (Handbook of International Relations) edited by
Andrei MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti,
2006, pp. 165-177.
22. TODEREAN, Olivia; Ionu APAHIDEANU, coala englez a relaiilor
internaionale, in Manual de relaii internaionale (Handbook of
International Relations) edited by Andrei MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian
UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti, 2006, pp. 155-163.
23. UNGUREANU, Radu-Sebastian, Teorii marxiste ale relaiilor
internaionale, in Manual de relaii internaionale (Handbook of
International Relations) edited by Andrei MIROIU and Radu-Sebastian
UNGUREANU, Polirom, Bucureti, 2006, pp. 115-126.
24. WALTZ, Kenneth, Teoria Politicii Internaionale (Theory of International
Politics), Romanian version. trans. Nicoleta Mihailescu, Polirom,
Bucureti, 2006.

48