The issue of security has long been the preoccupation of international relations. It has been

Brands' purpose for writing this book was to inform the reader of actions taken before, during, and after the Cold War. After World War II, the United States and Russia were the only two remaining world powers. Each had a conflicting method of government, which ultimately led to the Cold War. The two superpowers were at the center of attention for the better part of

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,

When assessing the global strategic environment, the major changes between 1971 and now is the types of perceived threats to national and international security. In 1971, when the White Paper on Defence was released, the world was dominated by the United States and the USSR, and there was a consensus that the major threat Canada feared the most was a nuclear war

The 1980’s were a dynamic time in the life cycle of the Cold War. The early portion of this decade, which saw massive shifts in the administrations of the United States and Soviet Union, maintained an atmosphere of suspicion, wariness, and skepticism. This theme of uncertainty and caution was the logical product of decades of both American and Soviet duplicity, confrontation, and militarization. Yet, despite this mistrust between the polar Cold War belligerents, and contrary to the early rhetoric of the Reagan administration, the United States and Soviet Union modified their perceptions of each other’s intentions following 1985’s Reykjavik Summit, which, despite producing no tangible results, established common desire for arms reduction and a conclusion of the Cold War. This warming of relations, however, increased at a gradual rate and encountered significant hurdles as the two nations attempted to limit the potential for thermonuclear war. Ultimately, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev’s “dialogue of the eyes” transitioned from one administration to the next, while also weathering significant domestic pressures as the United Soviet Socialist Republic disintegrated.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

American foreign policy has gradually changed since the birth of our nation. On July 4, 1891, John Quincy Adams addressed the Senate and House of Representatives during a powerful Independence Day speech designed to prevent an alliance with the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire. Although sympathetic to their cause, he warned against involving America in other states’ affairs, stating,” America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to Freedom and independence of all”. This paper seeks to evaluate the implications of John Quincy Adams’ statement, examine the trends of foreign policy and national security from the late nineteenth century to the present, and address current policy issues regarding

Post-Cold War Period Causes of Conflict The end of the Cold War meant that the ideological conflict of dominance between East (Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) and West (USA and Western Europe) was over. Contrary to the expectations that world would be much safer in the post-Cold War, United States and Soviet Union were faced with new security issues that they did not know how to deal with. The objective of this essay is to show that with all these changes that occurred with the end of the Cold War, causes of the conflict indeed altered from the classic ones.

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

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

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.

Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is “essentially contested” and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreements have created rifts in the security community over what can be threatened and indeed what can even be considered a threat. Part of the complexity to the subject is derived from the numerous opposing and often contradicting theoretical perspectives within international relations itself, of which security is a sub-field (Terrif et al. 1991 – Security studies today). This paper thereby seeks to trace the various theoretical strands of security studies with the hope of elucidating how and why Islam, and Muslims immigrants have been increasingly portrayed as a threat and ‘Otherised’ in Britain.

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,