Security Dilemm Spiral Model

Robert Jervis in ‘Security dilemma’ states that “states can neither neglect the possibility that others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves remain peaceful”. He argued that although other motives such as ‘greed, glory and honour’ come into play, much of international politics is

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

By realists’ theory, alliances and military mobilization can be seen as practices that can avoid war, but critics argue that it can cause the security dilemma – I build up my armed forces because you built up yours. (Packer 2015) Mutual fear and threats push neighbors to arms with the resulting arms race making all sides insecure and more likely to go to war. There will always be conflict between alliances and armament by satisfied powers versus by dissatisfied powers, major power alliances versus major-minor, and minor-minor alliances. (Packer,

The following wars have been divided between 1.) Wars caused by ethnic issues and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic issues. After determining the cause of war, I will focus on particular aspects of the war predominantly the death toll, how long the war lasted, if core states got involved in the conflict and if so how far removed were they from the region of conflict. Finally and most importantly, I will compare and contrast the two types of wars (1.) Wars caused by ethnic conflict and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic conflict) and determine how these wars were ultimately resolved. More specifically, I am determining if wars caused by ethic issues are resolved by internal means or whether they are resolved by external factors such as core states or states that have an invested interest in the matter.

In his 1992 book Writing Security, David Campbell writes that foreign policy is subjective and includes a description of dangers posed by others. Those that create foreign policy choose aspects of reality and describe them as threats to the state and society. He says that the purpose of national security strategy is primarily to define and support the state and national identity, which is created by marking borders between “us” and “the other”. Interpreting specific factors and groups in terms of threat reinforces citizens’ feelings of identity, belonging, and solidarity.

Security Dilemma: The security dilemma refers to the idea that arming for defense provokes other countries to arm. This increases tensions and potentially

The proposal of the National Missile Defense System by Capitol Hill is a clear example of the international security dilemma, where the United States' desire to become more secure compromises other states' security. By setting up a missile defense to escape the power of other states, this will only create insecurity in the international arena that will prompt other states to react with their own missile defense system. This dynamia can also be seen through the prisoner's dilemma diagram (Figure 1). The United States fears for the worst possibility so it arms itself to increase its protection. It does not trust the other players in the international community and does not want to

Similarities are found within the basic aspects between traditional and critical security studies. The use of historical studies on issues such as nuclear crises and US grand strategies through military and diplomatic means have still been used on security studies to understand and identify challenges in for the state. (Walt 1991, Pg. 218) Conventional warfare and the challenge to rational deterrence theory which sets territorial boundaries for states are also unescapable concepts.

Perry, William. ""Managing Conflict in the Post-Cold War Era"." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2017.

Brown (2001a, 2001b) identifies four main types of proximate causes of internal conflict. First, internal mass-level factors create bad domestic problems such as rapid economic development, modernization, patterns of political or economic discrimination, and internal migration like urbanization. Refugees or fighters from neighboring countries who cross the border often bring violence and turmoil with them. Second, radicalized politics can lead to contamination, diffusion, and spillover effects and create “bad neighborhoods”. For instance, the Hutu refugee camps in Zaire became prime recruitment zones for rebel forces. Third, internal elite-level aspects include power struggles by leaders of different groups, ideological contests over the way a country should be organized, and criminal assaults. Leaders have the ability to “play the ethnic card,” which can lead to increased tensions between ethnic groups. Milosevic’s policies in the former Yugoslavia are a good example. By using the national media, Milosevic fueled nationalist movements and hate toward non-Serbian groups, which led to ethnic cleansing and gross human rights violations committed during the wars in the 1990s.And finally, external, elite-level factors are the results of decisions by governments to trigger conflicts in weak neighboring states for political, economic, security, or ideological reasons; an example is Russian involvement in Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). In addition, ethnic minorities in some cases decide to wage a violent struggle in the hope of political gains and international support. Ethnic groups assume the willingness of the international community to react and to provide a political forum to support negotiation, arbitration, and the settlement of disputes. The assumption of intervention by the

The concept of security has been under development during the last decades and the traditional definition of it as the capability of the stat to protect it self against any military threats proven to be limited where new kinds of threats evolved such as (economic,social,enviromental and many others).Moreover, the identified enemy in the traditional definition start to be very difficult because of the international relations which might forced some countries not to declare another country as an enemy the relation between USA and the ex USSR can be a clear example.§

The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,