Notes: International Relations- 2 | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


• The balance of power is among the most persistent and most widely cited concepts in 
International Relations. It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will 
always be counterbalanced by a strategic alliance of rivals in order to secure their own 
survival and sovereignty. 
• According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a natural social principle or 
‘universal concept’ operating throughout history and on the group, national and 
international levels, aiming to establish, as the name of the concept already suggests, 
an equilibrium or a balance between components. 
• According to Waltz, balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-
help system on the behaviour of states, operating whenever a single state seeks 
preponderance over the others. In this case the threatened states can either try to 
counterbalance the rising hegemon by an increase of their national capabilities 
(internal balancing) or by the establishment of informal or formal alliances (external 
balancing). 
• Headley Bull distinguishes between balances of power on four accounts: 
1. Simple BoP as a balance of power made up of only two actors while Complex BoP 
consists of three or more great powers involved. 
2. General BoP is conceptualized as the absence of one dominant power in the 
international system, such as Cold War bipolarity while Local BoP consists of regional 
balance of power constellation – Bull exemplarily refers here to the Middle East. 
3. Thirdly, he argues that there is a difference between a subjectively (belief of 
preponderance) and an objectively existing balance of power (fact of 
preponderance). 
4. Difference between a fortuitous balance of power, resulting in a sudden moment of 
deadlock within an active conflict, and a contrived balance of power, established 
according to rational calculations of the actors involved. 
• Balance of Terror is associated with the concept of Deterrence which came into being 
with the development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, sometimes seen as 
the ‘first nuclear age’, nuclear proliferation was primarily vertical. Greatest attention 
was given to restricting the spread of nuclear arms beyond the ‘big five’, particularly 
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was introduced in 1968 and 
extended indefinitely in 1995. 
• Almost all states have signed the NPT, with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan 
and Israel. By contrast, during this period, the USA and the Soviet Union built up the 
Page 2


• The balance of power is among the most persistent and most widely cited concepts in 
International Relations. It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will 
always be counterbalanced by a strategic alliance of rivals in order to secure their own 
survival and sovereignty. 
• According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a natural social principle or 
‘universal concept’ operating throughout history and on the group, national and 
international levels, aiming to establish, as the name of the concept already suggests, 
an equilibrium or a balance between components. 
• According to Waltz, balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-
help system on the behaviour of states, operating whenever a single state seeks 
preponderance over the others. In this case the threatened states can either try to 
counterbalance the rising hegemon by an increase of their national capabilities 
(internal balancing) or by the establishment of informal or formal alliances (external 
balancing). 
• Headley Bull distinguishes between balances of power on four accounts: 
1. Simple BoP as a balance of power made up of only two actors while Complex BoP 
consists of three or more great powers involved. 
2. General BoP is conceptualized as the absence of one dominant power in the 
international system, such as Cold War bipolarity while Local BoP consists of regional 
balance of power constellation – Bull exemplarily refers here to the Middle East. 
3. Thirdly, he argues that there is a difference between a subjectively (belief of 
preponderance) and an objectively existing balance of power (fact of 
preponderance). 
4. Difference between a fortuitous balance of power, resulting in a sudden moment of 
deadlock within an active conflict, and a contrived balance of power, established 
according to rational calculations of the actors involved. 
• Balance of Terror is associated with the concept of Deterrence which came into being 
with the development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, sometimes seen as 
the ‘first nuclear age’, nuclear proliferation was primarily vertical. Greatest attention 
was given to restricting the spread of nuclear arms beyond the ‘big five’, particularly 
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was introduced in 1968 and 
extended indefinitely in 1995. 
• Almost all states have signed the NPT, with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan 
and Israel. By contrast, during this period, the USA and the Soviet Union built up the 
capacity to destroy the world many times over. 
• Both sides quickly developed massive first-strike capability, but also acquired second-
strike capabilities that would enable them to withstand an enemy’s attack and still 
destroy major strategic targets and population centres. 
• This resulted in the acceptance of concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), 
thus completing what Jervis called the ‘nuclear revolution’. This system of nuclear 
deterrence led to a ‘balance of terror’ that some have viewed as the most powerful 
evidence of the capacity of the balance of power to maintain peace and security. 
• AFK Organski has pointed out the following similarities between the two: 
o In both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror the nations are always 
involved in seeking to maximize their power. 
o Both interpret peace in terms of balance of power or terror which is reached 
through conscious attempts. 
o Both believe that the vital interests of nations are in danger when the balance 
is upset.  
o Both involve the acceptance of such national policies which are in reality 
dangerous and risky. 
o Both accept military power as a means for maintaining the balance. 
• On the other hand, Organski has also pointed to various dissimilarities between the 
two: 
o While BoP accepts resort to war as a means, balance of terror accepts only the 
threat of war or threat of nuclear weapons as a means for securing the 
balance. According to realists, absence of global war since 1945 has had little 
to do with the UN, being more a consequence of the ‘balance of terror’ that 
developed during the Cold War. 
o Balance of power accepts armament race as a natural phenomenon, balance 
of terror seeks to limit or maintain a particular low level in armament race. 
o Alliances are used as tools of balance of power. However, these do not affect 
the balance of terror because no alliance can create a preponderance of 
power against a nuclear power. 
o Balance of Terror is very closely related to the concept of Deterrence. Balance 
of Power is a device of power management which can also act as a sort of 
deterrent against war and aggression. 
 
 
Page 3


• The balance of power is among the most persistent and most widely cited concepts in 
International Relations. It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will 
always be counterbalanced by a strategic alliance of rivals in order to secure their own 
survival and sovereignty. 
• According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a natural social principle or 
‘universal concept’ operating throughout history and on the group, national and 
international levels, aiming to establish, as the name of the concept already suggests, 
an equilibrium or a balance between components. 
• According to Waltz, balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-
help system on the behaviour of states, operating whenever a single state seeks 
preponderance over the others. In this case the threatened states can either try to 
counterbalance the rising hegemon by an increase of their national capabilities 
(internal balancing) or by the establishment of informal or formal alliances (external 
balancing). 
• Headley Bull distinguishes between balances of power on four accounts: 
1. Simple BoP as a balance of power made up of only two actors while Complex BoP 
consists of three or more great powers involved. 
2. General BoP is conceptualized as the absence of one dominant power in the 
international system, such as Cold War bipolarity while Local BoP consists of regional 
balance of power constellation – Bull exemplarily refers here to the Middle East. 
3. Thirdly, he argues that there is a difference between a subjectively (belief of 
preponderance) and an objectively existing balance of power (fact of 
preponderance). 
4. Difference between a fortuitous balance of power, resulting in a sudden moment of 
deadlock within an active conflict, and a contrived balance of power, established 
according to rational calculations of the actors involved. 
• Balance of Terror is associated with the concept of Deterrence which came into being 
with the development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, sometimes seen as 
the ‘first nuclear age’, nuclear proliferation was primarily vertical. Greatest attention 
was given to restricting the spread of nuclear arms beyond the ‘big five’, particularly 
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was introduced in 1968 and 
extended indefinitely in 1995. 
• Almost all states have signed the NPT, with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan 
and Israel. By contrast, during this period, the USA and the Soviet Union built up the 
capacity to destroy the world many times over. 
• Both sides quickly developed massive first-strike capability, but also acquired second-
strike capabilities that would enable them to withstand an enemy’s attack and still 
destroy major strategic targets and population centres. 
• This resulted in the acceptance of concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), 
thus completing what Jervis called the ‘nuclear revolution’. This system of nuclear 
deterrence led to a ‘balance of terror’ that some have viewed as the most powerful 
evidence of the capacity of the balance of power to maintain peace and security. 
• AFK Organski has pointed out the following similarities between the two: 
o In both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror the nations are always 
involved in seeking to maximize their power. 
o Both interpret peace in terms of balance of power or terror which is reached 
through conscious attempts. 
o Both believe that the vital interests of nations are in danger when the balance 
is upset.  
o Both involve the acceptance of such national policies which are in reality 
dangerous and risky. 
o Both accept military power as a means for maintaining the balance. 
• On the other hand, Organski has also pointed to various dissimilarities between the 
two: 
o While BoP accepts resort to war as a means, balance of terror accepts only the 
threat of war or threat of nuclear weapons as a means for securing the 
balance. According to realists, absence of global war since 1945 has had little 
to do with the UN, being more a consequence of the ‘balance of terror’ that 
developed during the Cold War. 
o Balance of power accepts armament race as a natural phenomenon, balance 
of terror seeks to limit or maintain a particular low level in armament race. 
o Alliances are used as tools of balance of power. However, these do not affect 
the balance of terror because no alliance can create a preponderance of 
power against a nuclear power. 
o Balance of Terror is very closely related to the concept of Deterrence. Balance 
of Power is a device of power management which can also act as a sort of 
deterrent against war and aggression. 
 
 
• Benefits: 
o Maintenance of peace and security- Mearsheimer talks of the ’long peace’ 
during the Cold War. 
o Maintenance of independence of smaller states post WWII due to the security 
pacts like NATO and Warsaw. 
o Respect and obedience to international law due existence of powers to keep 
a check on one another. 
o Disarmament and arms control as well as confidence building measures- SALT 
I, START I, New START (extended to Feb 2026 by Biden) and NPT. 
• Criticisms: 
o Understands idea of peace and security very narrowly, thereby ignoring other 
aspects of development. 
o Did not ensure peace- ignores smaller theaters of war (Korea, Vietnam, 
Afghanistan) and civil strife in various smaller countries. 
o Assumes presence of a ‘balancer’ to maintain equilibrium- not necessarily true 
especially in context of unipolar world and rise of US hegemony- attempt by 
France, Germany to block Iraq’s invasion in UNSC but still carried on. 
• Most writers agree that security is a 'contested concept'. There is a consensus that it 
implies freedom from threats but what constitutes threat and to whom is a matter of 
debate. 
• Due to the dominance of realists in IR, the subject was dominated by the idea of 
national security, which was largely defined in militarized terms. The subject of inquiry 
of realists is the ‘state’ and maintenance of its power through national security 
(security dilemma), which led to formation of alliance system and acquisition of nuclear 
weapons. 
• This perspective ignores an individualistic level of insecurity. Eg. NATO during cold war, 
claimed that it had established peace due to the absence of overt violence, but 
completely ignored civil conflicts within a state that threatened human life e.g. the 
‘forgotten war’ of DRC from 1996-2013. 
• Liberal Institutionalism argues that security can be maintained through international 
institutions. According to Keohane and Martin, 'institutions can provide information, 
reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for 
Page 4


• The balance of power is among the most persistent and most widely cited concepts in 
International Relations. It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will 
always be counterbalanced by a strategic alliance of rivals in order to secure their own 
survival and sovereignty. 
• According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a natural social principle or 
‘universal concept’ operating throughout history and on the group, national and 
international levels, aiming to establish, as the name of the concept already suggests, 
an equilibrium or a balance between components. 
• According to Waltz, balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-
help system on the behaviour of states, operating whenever a single state seeks 
preponderance over the others. In this case the threatened states can either try to 
counterbalance the rising hegemon by an increase of their national capabilities 
(internal balancing) or by the establishment of informal or formal alliances (external 
balancing). 
• Headley Bull distinguishes between balances of power on four accounts: 
1. Simple BoP as a balance of power made up of only two actors while Complex BoP 
consists of three or more great powers involved. 
2. General BoP is conceptualized as the absence of one dominant power in the 
international system, such as Cold War bipolarity while Local BoP consists of regional 
balance of power constellation – Bull exemplarily refers here to the Middle East. 
3. Thirdly, he argues that there is a difference between a subjectively (belief of 
preponderance) and an objectively existing balance of power (fact of 
preponderance). 
4. Difference between a fortuitous balance of power, resulting in a sudden moment of 
deadlock within an active conflict, and a contrived balance of power, established 
according to rational calculations of the actors involved. 
• Balance of Terror is associated with the concept of Deterrence which came into being 
with the development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, sometimes seen as 
the ‘first nuclear age’, nuclear proliferation was primarily vertical. Greatest attention 
was given to restricting the spread of nuclear arms beyond the ‘big five’, particularly 
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was introduced in 1968 and 
extended indefinitely in 1995. 
• Almost all states have signed the NPT, with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan 
and Israel. By contrast, during this period, the USA and the Soviet Union built up the 
capacity to destroy the world many times over. 
• Both sides quickly developed massive first-strike capability, but also acquired second-
strike capabilities that would enable them to withstand an enemy’s attack and still 
destroy major strategic targets and population centres. 
• This resulted in the acceptance of concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), 
thus completing what Jervis called the ‘nuclear revolution’. This system of nuclear 
deterrence led to a ‘balance of terror’ that some have viewed as the most powerful 
evidence of the capacity of the balance of power to maintain peace and security. 
• AFK Organski has pointed out the following similarities between the two: 
o In both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror the nations are always 
involved in seeking to maximize their power. 
o Both interpret peace in terms of balance of power or terror which is reached 
through conscious attempts. 
o Both believe that the vital interests of nations are in danger when the balance 
is upset.  
o Both involve the acceptance of such national policies which are in reality 
dangerous and risky. 
o Both accept military power as a means for maintaining the balance. 
• On the other hand, Organski has also pointed to various dissimilarities between the 
two: 
o While BoP accepts resort to war as a means, balance of terror accepts only the 
threat of war or threat of nuclear weapons as a means for securing the 
balance. According to realists, absence of global war since 1945 has had little 
to do with the UN, being more a consequence of the ‘balance of terror’ that 
developed during the Cold War. 
o Balance of power accepts armament race as a natural phenomenon, balance 
of terror seeks to limit or maintain a particular low level in armament race. 
o Alliances are used as tools of balance of power. However, these do not affect 
the balance of terror because no alliance can create a preponderance of 
power against a nuclear power. 
o Balance of Terror is very closely related to the concept of Deterrence. Balance 
of Power is a device of power management which can also act as a sort of 
deterrent against war and aggression. 
 
 
• Benefits: 
o Maintenance of peace and security- Mearsheimer talks of the ’long peace’ 
during the Cold War. 
o Maintenance of independence of smaller states post WWII due to the security 
pacts like NATO and Warsaw. 
o Respect and obedience to international law due existence of powers to keep 
a check on one another. 
o Disarmament and arms control as well as confidence building measures- SALT 
I, START I, New START (extended to Feb 2026 by Biden) and NPT. 
• Criticisms: 
o Understands idea of peace and security very narrowly, thereby ignoring other 
aspects of development. 
o Did not ensure peace- ignores smaller theaters of war (Korea, Vietnam, 
Afghanistan) and civil strife in various smaller countries. 
o Assumes presence of a ‘balancer’ to maintain equilibrium- not necessarily true 
especially in context of unipolar world and rise of US hegemony- attempt by 
France, Germany to block Iraq’s invasion in UNSC but still carried on. 
• Most writers agree that security is a 'contested concept'. There is a consensus that it 
implies freedom from threats but what constitutes threat and to whom is a matter of 
debate. 
• Due to the dominance of realists in IR, the subject was dominated by the idea of 
national security, which was largely defined in militarized terms. The subject of inquiry 
of realists is the ‘state’ and maintenance of its power through national security 
(security dilemma), which led to formation of alliance system and acquisition of nuclear 
weapons. 
• This perspective ignores an individualistic level of insecurity. Eg. NATO during cold war, 
claimed that it had established peace due to the absence of overt violence, but 
completely ignored civil conflicts within a state that threatened human life e.g. the 
‘forgotten war’ of DRC from 1996-2013. 
• Liberal Institutionalism argues that security can be maintained through international 
institutions. According to Keohane and Martin, 'institutions can provide information, 
reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for 
coordination and, in general, facilitate the operation of reciprocity'. 
• However, this idea of security has been criticized for being ethnocentric (culturally 
biased) and too narrowly defined. E.g. UN definition of refugee, refugee law and 
despite this, repatriation is undertaken by powerful states and then use of ‘voluntary 
repatriation’ norms (vs non-refoulement under 1951 Convention). 
• Contemporary theorists like Barry Buzan (Copenhagen school), in his study, ‘People, 
States and Fear’, argues for a view of security that includes political, economic, societal 
and environmental, as well as military aspects, and that is also defined in broader 
international terms. 
• Other theorists underline that dual processes of integration and fragmentation 
associated with globalization that characterize the contemporary world mean that 
much more attention should be given to 'societal security’. 
• Constructivists like Wendt argue that the security dilemma is a social structure 
composed of inter-subjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that 
they make worst case assumptions about each other's intentions, and, as a result, 
define their interests in 'self-help' terms. In contrast, a security community (like NATO) 
is a rather different social structure, composed of shared knowledge in which states 
trust one another to resolve disputes without war. 
• Critical security studies, includes a number of different approaches, that seek to move 
beyond the state in understanding security. According to this view, therefore, attention 
should be focused on the individual rather than on the state. This has led to greater 
attention being given to what has been called human security. 
• UNDP report articulated 7 elements of human security – 
o Economic (Free of poverty); 
o Food (access to adequate food); 
o Health (access to healthcare); 
o Environmental (security from natural disasters); 
o Personal (physical safety from sexual assault, suicide, drug use, traffic 
accidents); 
o Community (survival of ethnic groups and the physical safety of such groups) 
and 
o Political (enjoyment of political rights and freedom of political oppression) 
security. 
• Feminist scholars like Tickner believe that international security has been written from 
a 'masculine' point of view. According to Jill Steans, 'Rethinking security involves 
Page 5


• The balance of power is among the most persistent and most widely cited concepts in 
International Relations. It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will 
always be counterbalanced by a strategic alliance of rivals in order to secure their own 
survival and sovereignty. 
• According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a natural social principle or 
‘universal concept’ operating throughout history and on the group, national and 
international levels, aiming to establish, as the name of the concept already suggests, 
an equilibrium or a balance between components. 
• According to Waltz, balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-
help system on the behaviour of states, operating whenever a single state seeks 
preponderance over the others. In this case the threatened states can either try to 
counterbalance the rising hegemon by an increase of their national capabilities 
(internal balancing) or by the establishment of informal or formal alliances (external 
balancing). 
• Headley Bull distinguishes between balances of power on four accounts: 
1. Simple BoP as a balance of power made up of only two actors while Complex BoP 
consists of three or more great powers involved. 
2. General BoP is conceptualized as the absence of one dominant power in the 
international system, such as Cold War bipolarity while Local BoP consists of regional 
balance of power constellation – Bull exemplarily refers here to the Middle East. 
3. Thirdly, he argues that there is a difference between a subjectively (belief of 
preponderance) and an objectively existing balance of power (fact of 
preponderance). 
4. Difference between a fortuitous balance of power, resulting in a sudden moment of 
deadlock within an active conflict, and a contrived balance of power, established 
according to rational calculations of the actors involved. 
• Balance of Terror is associated with the concept of Deterrence which came into being 
with the development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, sometimes seen as 
the ‘first nuclear age’, nuclear proliferation was primarily vertical. Greatest attention 
was given to restricting the spread of nuclear arms beyond the ‘big five’, particularly 
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was introduced in 1968 and 
extended indefinitely in 1995. 
• Almost all states have signed the NPT, with the notable exceptions of India, Pakistan 
and Israel. By contrast, during this period, the USA and the Soviet Union built up the 
capacity to destroy the world many times over. 
• Both sides quickly developed massive first-strike capability, but also acquired second-
strike capabilities that would enable them to withstand an enemy’s attack and still 
destroy major strategic targets and population centres. 
• This resulted in the acceptance of concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), 
thus completing what Jervis called the ‘nuclear revolution’. This system of nuclear 
deterrence led to a ‘balance of terror’ that some have viewed as the most powerful 
evidence of the capacity of the balance of power to maintain peace and security. 
• AFK Organski has pointed out the following similarities between the two: 
o In both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror the nations are always 
involved in seeking to maximize their power. 
o Both interpret peace in terms of balance of power or terror which is reached 
through conscious attempts. 
o Both believe that the vital interests of nations are in danger when the balance 
is upset.  
o Both involve the acceptance of such national policies which are in reality 
dangerous and risky. 
o Both accept military power as a means for maintaining the balance. 
• On the other hand, Organski has also pointed to various dissimilarities between the 
two: 
o While BoP accepts resort to war as a means, balance of terror accepts only the 
threat of war or threat of nuclear weapons as a means for securing the 
balance. According to realists, absence of global war since 1945 has had little 
to do with the UN, being more a consequence of the ‘balance of terror’ that 
developed during the Cold War. 
o Balance of power accepts armament race as a natural phenomenon, balance 
of terror seeks to limit or maintain a particular low level in armament race. 
o Alliances are used as tools of balance of power. However, these do not affect 
the balance of terror because no alliance can create a preponderance of 
power against a nuclear power. 
o Balance of Terror is very closely related to the concept of Deterrence. Balance 
of Power is a device of power management which can also act as a sort of 
deterrent against war and aggression. 
 
 
• Benefits: 
o Maintenance of peace and security- Mearsheimer talks of the ’long peace’ 
during the Cold War. 
o Maintenance of independence of smaller states post WWII due to the security 
pacts like NATO and Warsaw. 
o Respect and obedience to international law due existence of powers to keep 
a check on one another. 
o Disarmament and arms control as well as confidence building measures- SALT 
I, START I, New START (extended to Feb 2026 by Biden) and NPT. 
• Criticisms: 
o Understands idea of peace and security very narrowly, thereby ignoring other 
aspects of development. 
o Did not ensure peace- ignores smaller theaters of war (Korea, Vietnam, 
Afghanistan) and civil strife in various smaller countries. 
o Assumes presence of a ‘balancer’ to maintain equilibrium- not necessarily true 
especially in context of unipolar world and rise of US hegemony- attempt by 
France, Germany to block Iraq’s invasion in UNSC but still carried on. 
• Most writers agree that security is a 'contested concept'. There is a consensus that it 
implies freedom from threats but what constitutes threat and to whom is a matter of 
debate. 
• Due to the dominance of realists in IR, the subject was dominated by the idea of 
national security, which was largely defined in militarized terms. The subject of inquiry 
of realists is the ‘state’ and maintenance of its power through national security 
(security dilemma), which led to formation of alliance system and acquisition of nuclear 
weapons. 
• This perspective ignores an individualistic level of insecurity. Eg. NATO during cold war, 
claimed that it had established peace due to the absence of overt violence, but 
completely ignored civil conflicts within a state that threatened human life e.g. the 
‘forgotten war’ of DRC from 1996-2013. 
• Liberal Institutionalism argues that security can be maintained through international 
institutions. According to Keohane and Martin, 'institutions can provide information, 
reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for 
coordination and, in general, facilitate the operation of reciprocity'. 
• However, this idea of security has been criticized for being ethnocentric (culturally 
biased) and too narrowly defined. E.g. UN definition of refugee, refugee law and 
despite this, repatriation is undertaken by powerful states and then use of ‘voluntary 
repatriation’ norms (vs non-refoulement under 1951 Convention). 
• Contemporary theorists like Barry Buzan (Copenhagen school), in his study, ‘People, 
States and Fear’, argues for a view of security that includes political, economic, societal 
and environmental, as well as military aspects, and that is also defined in broader 
international terms. 
• Other theorists underline that dual processes of integration and fragmentation 
associated with globalization that characterize the contemporary world mean that 
much more attention should be given to 'societal security’. 
• Constructivists like Wendt argue that the security dilemma is a social structure 
composed of inter-subjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that 
they make worst case assumptions about each other's intentions, and, as a result, 
define their interests in 'self-help' terms. In contrast, a security community (like NATO) 
is a rather different social structure, composed of shared knowledge in which states 
trust one another to resolve disputes without war. 
• Critical security studies, includes a number of different approaches, that seek to move 
beyond the state in understanding security. According to this view, therefore, attention 
should be focused on the individual rather than on the state. This has led to greater 
attention being given to what has been called human security. 
• UNDP report articulated 7 elements of human security – 
o Economic (Free of poverty); 
o Food (access to adequate food); 
o Health (access to healthcare); 
o Environmental (security from natural disasters); 
o Personal (physical safety from sexual assault, suicide, drug use, traffic 
accidents); 
o Community (survival of ethnic groups and the physical safety of such groups) 
and 
o Political (enjoyment of political rights and freedom of political oppression) 
security. 
• Feminist scholars like Tickner believe that international security has been written from 
a 'masculine' point of view. According to Jill Steans, 'Rethinking security involves 
thinking about militarism and patriarchy, mal- development and environmental 
degradation. It involves thinking about the relationship between poverty, debt and 
population growth. 
• Feminists point out how often in IR we think of men as protectors, and women and 
children as people who need protection. Feminists severely challenge the protection 
myth by pointing how a major number of causalities in war are women and children. 
• Further in wartime, women are particularly subject to rape and prostitution which is 
often a part of military strategy. Pettman in her works writes that it is estimated that 
20,000 to 35,000 women were raped during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 
Bosnia, rape was associated with a policy of ethnic cleansing. 
• Further during war many women are forced into prostitution. Katherine Moon writes 
about military prostitution around US army bases in South Korea in 1970’s. She shows 
how military prostitution interacted with US-South Korea ties at the highest level, and 
how in the name of national security, Korean state made exploitative policies for these 
women. 
• Now that women are being accepted into the armed forces of certain states in ever-
larger numbers, the picture is more complicated. The presence of women in militaries 
stirs deep currents, particularly with respect to their role in combat. 
• Feminists prefer to define security broadly-as the diminution of all forms of violence, 
including physical, economic, and ecological. They suggest that we think about security 
from the bottom up instead of from the top down, meaning that we start with the 
security of individual or community rather than with that of the state or the 
international system. 
• Conciliatory gestures by states are often seen as weak and not in the national interest. 
This can also contribute to the perceived inauthenticity of women's voices in matters 
of policy-making. 
• It is important to see women, as well as men, as security providers. As civilian war 
casualties increase, women's responsibilities rise. When men go off to fight, women 
are left behind as caregivers increasing their vulnerability. Feminists therefore stress 
on the need to go beyond a militarized notion of security. 
• Poststructuralists see 'realism' as one of the central problems of international 
insecurity. According to this view, alliances do not produce peace, but lead to war. The 
aim for many poststructuralists, therefore, is to replace the discourse of realism or 
power.