1.

​ Explain the concept of Security in International Relations with reference to

power, peace and identity.
​
Introduction

Security has long occupied a central place in the discourse of International Relations
(IR). From the early days of classical realism to the complex, multi-dimensional
approaches of contemporary critical security studies, the term “security” has
undergone significant theoretical evolution. Traditionally understood as the protection
of state sovereignty and territorial integrity against external military threats,
especially during the Cold War, security has now expanded to include economic,
environmental, societal, and individual dimensions.

The reconceptualization of security has required scholars to revisit core IR

categories such as power, peace, and identity, each offering distinct yet interlinked
lenses for analysis. These categories, deeply embedded in the theoretical
architecture of IR, help scholars and practitioners understand not only what security
is, but also how it is perceived, what it is for, and who it is about.

Main Answer

1. Security through Power: The Realist and Neorealist Framework

Within the Realist tradition, security is understood as the product of power

dynamics in an anarchic international system. The absence of a central authority
compels states to rely on self-help mechanisms, leading to a constant struggle for
military and strategic superiority.

Barry Buzan (1984), in Peace, Power, and Security, explains how the concept
of power has dominated IR due to its descriptive simplicity and close
alignment with decision-makers’ priorities. Power is seen as both the means to
achieve security and the measure of one's ability to withstand threats. Buzan
critiques this view for being excessively state-centric and materialist, arguing
that it fails to capture the full complexity of the security dilemma, wherein
actions taken by one state to increase its security often decrease the security
of others, sparking arms races and mutual distrust.

Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism (1979) similarly reinforces this connection.

He sees the distribution of capabilities across the international system (i.e.,
polarity) as the main determinant of security. Here, power is both a means and
a goal, and peace is only achievable through balance-of-power politics.
Stephen Walt (1987), in The Origins of Alliances, expands this argument by
introducing “threat perception” into realist logic—stating that states balance
not merely against power, but against threats, which include both material
capabilities and perceived intentions.

Key Concepts:

●​ Security Dilemma (Herz, 1950): Mutual suspicion drives escalation.​

●​ Self-help: States cannot rely on others for survival.​

●​ Relative gains: States are concerned not just with their own gains, but how
much others gain relative to them.​

Critique:

This model, while effective in explaining Cold War militarization and strategic
behavior, is narrow. It reduces security to a zero-sum game and neglects
non-military dimensions such as societal cohesion, economic stability, and ecological
sustainability. Furthermore, it treats identity and peace either as secondary or
irrelevant, leading to blind spots in analyzing post-Cold War conflicts and security
challenges.

2. Security through Peace: The Liberal-Idealist and Critical Turn

The Liberal and Peace Studies traditions reframe security as something

achievable through cooperation, institutions, and the reduction of structural
violence. Unlike realists, peace-oriented theorists argue that interdependence,
democracy, and international norms can create lasting security arrangements that
do not depend on coercive power.

Barry Buzan critiques both power and peace frameworks, suggesting that
peace, while normatively attractive, often leans toward utopianism. In his view,
peace theorists tend to underplay the durability of anarchy and arms races,
assuming that cooperation is more achievable than it actually is in a
fragmented international system.

Immanuel Kant’s concept of perpetual peace laid early foundations for this
approach, emphasizing republican government, economic interdependence,
and international law. Later, the Democratic Peace Theory, popularized by
Michael Doyle, held that democracies rarely go to war with each other,
suggesting that spreading liberal values contributes to security.
More contemporary peace thinkers such as Johan Galtung conceptualized peace
as both negative (absence of violence) and positive (presence of justice). Security,
in this sense, is deeply intertwined with development, human rights, and global
equity.

Key Concepts:

●​ Positive peace: Structural transformation for lasting harmony.​

●​ Security communities: Regions (like the EU) where war has become
unthinkable (Karl Deutsch, Adler & Barnett).​

●​ Collective security: Institutions like the UN promote multilateral approaches

to peace.​

Critique:

While peace-oriented approaches highlight the potential for normative progress,

they often overlook power asymmetries, state interests, and the reality of anarchy.
The assumption that shared values or institutions automatically produce security
is criticized for its Western-centric bias and limited applicability to regions
experiencing civil wars, authoritarianism, or external interventions.

3. Security and Identity: The Constructivist and Post-Structuralist Intervention

Perhaps the most profound shift in the security debate has come from
constructivist and post-structuralist scholars, who have introduced identity as a
core component of security. They argue that both security and insecurity are
socially constructed, contingent upon how actors define “self” and “other.”

Alexander Wendt (1992), in his pivotal article Anarchy is What States Make of
It, contests the realist view that anarchy inevitably produces self-help
behavior. Instead, Wendt asserts that state identities and interests are shaped
through interaction. Thus, security is not an outcome of material power alone,
but of intersubjective meanings and social practices.

Pinar Bilgin, in The Routledge Handbook of New Security Studies, highlights

how identity-based insecurities—rooted in ethnicity, religion, or
nationalism—often drive internal and regional conflicts. She critiques
conventional security studies for treating identity as pre-given and inherently
conflictual, instead proposing that identity is co-constitutive with
security—meaning it can be both a source of insecurity and of peace.
Jutta Weldes, analyzing the Cuban Missile Crisis, argues that it was not just
the presence of Soviet missiles, but the threat they posed to U.S. identity as
the "leader of the free world", that escalated tensions. This shows how
representational politics, not just material threats, create perceptions of
insecurity.

Ken Booth’s Critical Security Studies calls for a move from state security to
emancipation, suggesting that true security lies in freeing individuals and
communities from structural violence, poverty, and exclusion.

Key Concepts:

●​ Self/Other dichotomy: Security constructed through difference.​

●​ Securitization (Copenhagen School): How issues are framed as existential

threats through discourse.​

●​ Societal security: Concerned with identity preservation, especially among

minority groups.​

Critique:

While immensely powerful in explaining post-Cold War and intrastate conflicts,

identity-based approaches can be abstract, methodologically loose, and difficult
to translate into policy. Critics argue that constructivist and post-structuralist
methods focus too much on discourse, undermining material realities like military
power or institutional design.

Criticism

Across all three frameworks, criticisms abound, largely because each one
illuminates certain dimensions of security while obscuring others.

●​ Realism is critiqued for being overly state-centric and militarized, failing to

address threats like climate change, cyber-security, or internal instability.​

●​ Peace-oriented theories are often labeled idealistic, presuming that

rationality and shared norms can overcome entrenched power politics.​

●​ Constructivist and identity-based theories face critiques for

overemphasizing discourse, being under-theorized in material terms, and
 sometimes detached from policy relevance.​

Further, as Buzan and Hansen (2009) argue, the ongoing broadening and
deepening of the security agenda has led to conceptual overstretch. When
everything is securitized—from food to gender to migration—there’s a danger of
making security so diffuse that it loses analytical utility.

Conclusion

Security in International Relations is far from a static or singular concept. It is a

multi-layered, contested, and evolving category shaped by theoretical
perspectives, political interests, and social realities. The interplay between power,
peace, and identity offers a rich conceptual triad for understanding the dynamics of
global (in)security.

While power-based models continue to dominate state policy and strategic

discourse, the relevance of peace and identity perspectives has grown in the face
of new global challenges—ethnic conflicts, terrorism, migration, pandemics, and
climate change. As scholars like Barry Buzan, Pinar Bilgin, and Alexander Wendt
have shown, no single paradigm can fully account for the complexities of
international security. Instead, a more integrated, context-sensitive, and
interdisciplinary approach is required.

Ultimately, the study of security must balance the realities of power, the
aspirations for peace, and the social constructs of identity, if it is to serve both
analytical precision and normative ambition in a turbulent global order.
2. Make an assessment of traditional and non traditional sectors of security.

Introduction

The concept of security has historically been one of the most contested yet central
themes in the field of International Relations (IR). While traditional security
approaches have dominated much of the 20th-century strategic discourse—focusing
almost exclusively on the preservation of the state against military threats—the
post-Cold War period has witnessed a paradigmatic shift towards broader
conceptions of security. This shift has incorporated a variety of non-traditional
threats, such as environmental degradation, transnational terrorism, pandemics,
organized crime, migration, gender-based violence, and more. This expansion, while
liberating for many scholars and communities previously excluded from security
discourses, has also drawn criticism from the traditionalists who fear conceptual
dilution and theoretical incoherence.

Main Answer

1. Traditional Security: Foundations and Features

Traditional security, deeply rooted in the realist and neorealist traditions,

conceptualizes security primarily in terms of military threats to the sovereign
state. The foundations of this approach are laid by scholars such as Hans J.
Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and Stephen Walt.

●​ Realist Perspective: Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (1948)

emphasizes the anarchic nature of international politics and the centrality of
power and national interest. Security, in this view, is synonymous with the
survival of the state in an inherently conflictual system.​

●​ Neorealism: Kenneth Waltz, in Theory of International Politics (1979),

systematizes realism further by emphasizing the structural constraints of the
international system. For Waltz, states are "functionally similar units" whose
main concern is to maintain their position and security in a self-help system.​

●​ Military-Centric: Security studies, especially during the Cold War, were

defined by the management of military threats and deterrence strategies
(nuclear and conventional). As Stephen Walt argues in his 1991 essay, “The
Renaissance of Security Studies,” the field’s legitimacy lies in its focus on the
“threat, use, and control of military force.”​

This approach regards non-military issues—such as economic disparity or

environmental threats—as "low politics," inherently secondary to the “high politics” of
survival and warfare.
2. Emergence of Non-Traditional Security (NTS)

The end of the Cold War marked a profound transformation in security discourse.
The collapse of the bipolar world order brought attention to intra-state conflicts,
humanitarian crises, globalization-induced vulnerabilities, and human security
concerns. Non-traditional security represents this broadening and deepening of the
security agenda.

●​ Broadening: Includes sectors such as economic, environmental, food, health,

and cyber security.​

●​ Deepening: Moves the referent object of security from the state to the
individual, community, and even global ecosystem.​

Key Theoretical Contributions to NTS

●​ Barry Buzan and the Copenhagen School: In People, States and Fear
(1991), Buzan identifies five sectors of security—military, political, economic,
societal, and environmental. Buzan introduces the idea of "securitization,"
which shifts the focus from objective threats to how issues become
constructed as security threats through political processes.​

●​ Critical Security Studies (CSS) / Welsh School: Pioneered by Ken Booth

and Richard Wyn Jones, this approach reconceptualizes security around the
notion of emancipation. Booth (1991) argues that "security means the
absence of threats," and true security entails the removal of "unequal power
relations, poverty, and oppression." Here, the individual becomes the primary
referent of security.​

●​ Human Security: Introduced by the 1994 UNDP Human Development

Report, this approach focuses on "freedom from fear" and "freedom from
want." Human security is multidimensional—ranging from personal,
community, political, to environmental insecurities.​

3. Comparative Synthesis

Criteria Traditional Security Non-Traditional Security (NTS)

Referent State Individual, community, environment

Object
Nature of Military (external Multidimensional: environmental,
Threats aggression) economic, health, etc.

Approach Realist/neorealist, Liberal, Constructivist, Critical,

state-centric Feminist

Method Strategic studies, Interdisciplinary, people-centered

deterrence theory

Timeframe Cold War era Post-Cold War to contemporary global

era

4. South Asian Perspective

In the South Asian context, the debate between traditional and non-traditional
security is particularly pertinent. As Jayadeva Uyangoda notes, the problem with
much of South Asian security thinking is that it remains imprisoned within the
"nation-state narrative." P.R. Chari, Rajesh Basrur, and W. Lawrence Prabhakar
highlight the deficiencies in state-centric models and advocate for inclusion of food
security, environmental degradation, and regional economic disparities as legitimate
security concerns.

Criticism

While the expansion of the security agenda is welcomed by many, critics raise
serious concerns:

●​ Stephen Walt warns that broadening the scope of security studies risks losing
analytical clarity and policy focus. As he provocatively states, if "everything is
security, then nothing is."​

●​ Traditionalists fear that inclusion of too many issues may reduce security
studies to a vague moral project lacking scientific rigor.​

●​ Risk of Politicization: The process of “securitization,” as argued by Buzan

and Waever, can be dangerous—it legitimizes extraordinary measures and
emergency powers.​
 ●​ State Skepticism: While critical theorists argue for moving beyond the state,
in practice, as Mustafa Kamal Pasha points out, states still remain central
actors in providing and denying security. Ignoring them could be naïve in
policy praxis.​

Conclusion

In assessing traditional and non-traditional sectors of security, one recognizes that

both approaches offer valuable insights. Traditional security provides the necessary
vigilance against military and strategic threats, while non-traditional security opens
up the space to consider a more human-centric, ethical, and globalized vision of
safety and well-being. The challenge today is not choosing between them, but
synthesizing their insights to develop a comprehensive, layered, and
context-sensitive understanding of security that is attuned to both material realities
and normative aspirations.
3. Write an Essay on Gender and Security

Introduction

The discourse on gender and security has emerged as one of the most
transformative developments in critical security studies, challenging the masculine
foundations of traditional IR theory and exposing the gendered nature of conflict,
violence, and peacebuilding. Gender, far from being a peripheral concern, lies at the
heart of how security is defined, operationalized, and practiced. Feminist scholars
argue that security discourses, institutions, and practices are deeply embedded
within patriarchal structures, and any meaningful analysis of security must address
the specific experiences, vulnerabilities, and agency of women and other
marginalized genders.

Main Answer

1. The Gendered Nature of Security

●​ Cynthia Enloe, in her seminal work Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989),
famously asks, “Where are the women?”—a question that calls attention to
the invisibilization of women’s roles in war and peace.​

●​ Traditional security narratives prioritize male experiences of combat,

leadership, and strategy, while relegating women to the margins as victims or
passive supporters.​

●​ J. Ann Tickner, in Gender in International Relations (1992), critiques the

realist emphasis on power and sovereignty as “masculinist” and exclusionary,
proposing instead an alternative, feminist vision of security grounded in
cooperation, interdependence, and care.​

2. Feminist Security Studies (FSS)

Feminist Security Studies emerged in the 1990s as a branch of Critical Security

Studies, with a mission to deconstruct dominant assumptions and offer inclusive
analyses.

●​ Conceptual Shifts:​

○​ Moves the referent object of security from the state to women,

marginalized communities, and non-combatants.​
 ○​ Expands the definition of violence to include structural, cultural, and
gender-based violence.​

○​ Emphasizes everyday insecurities—domestic violence, rape,

economic inequality, and political exclusion.​

●​ Key Themes in FSS:​

○​ Militarization and Masculinity: As Carol Cohn illustrates in her work

on nuclear discourse, the language of deterrence is deeply
gendered—emphasizing toughness, penetration, and domination.​

○​ War and Sexual Violence: The use of rape as a weapon of war—seen

in conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, and the DRC—highlights how gendered
violence is central, not peripheral, to conflict.​

○​ Peacebuilding and Women's Agency: The UN Security Council

Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (2000) was a
landmark, recognizing the critical role of women in peace processes
and post-conflict reconstruction.​

3. Intersectionality in Security Studies

Contemporary feminist scholars, inspired by Kimberlé Crenshaw, incorporate

intersectionality into security analysis—emphasizing that race, class, gender,
sexuality, and ethnicity intersect to produce complex forms of insecurity.

For instance:

●​ Black women in conflict zones may experience compounded vulnerabilities.​

●​ LGBTQ+ individuals face both state violence and societal discrimination, even
in times of "peace."​

4. Gender and Non-Traditional Security

The integration of gender in the broader non-traditional security agenda is crucial.

●​ Health Security: Women disproportionately suffer during pandemics due to

caregiving roles, lack of access to healthcare, and reproductive health
challenges.​
 ●​ Environmental Security: Climate change impacts women differently—due to
gendered division of labor, displacement risks, and reduced access to
resources.​

●​ Human Trafficking and Migration: Gender-sensitive analyses reveal how

women and girls are particularly targeted in global trafficking networks.​

5. South Asian Lens: Women and Conflict

South Asia provides powerful case studies of how gender and security intersect:

●​ In Kashmir, Siddharth Mallavarapu and others have shown how militarization

has affected women's lives—both through direct violence and systemic
marginalization.​

●​ In Sri Lanka, the Tamil women’s experience during and after the civil war
reflects the multidimensional nature of gendered insecurities.​

●​ WISCOMP (Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace) has led

several initiatives in India to highlight women’s roles as peacebuilders, not
merely victims.​

Criticism

Despite its revolutionary contributions, Feminist Security Studies is not without

critique:

●​ Risk of Essentialism: Early feminist literature was critiqued for universalizing

women’s experiences, often privileging white, Western perspectives.​

●​ Lack of Policy Translation: Critics argue that while feminist theory is rich in
critique, it sometimes lacks concrete policy prescriptions.​

●​ Marginalization within Academia: Feminist security studies often remain at

the fringes of mainstream IR syllabi and institutions.​

Conclusion

Gender and security is not a niche concern—it is foundational to a just, inclusive,

and effective understanding of global politics. The feminist reconceptualization of
security—from state to individual, from battlefield to home, from soldier to
civilian—challenges the epistemological, normative, and practical assumptions of
traditional security thinking. It compels us to ask difficult but necessary questions:
Who is made secure, and at whose expense? Who defines security, and who is left
out? Addressing these questions is not only academically enriching but politically
urgent in a world where security continues to be unevenly distributed along gendered
lines.
4. Describe the critical approach to security.

Introduction:

The critical approach to security represents a fundamental shift from the traditional,
state-centric perspectives of security studies. It emerged in the aftermath of the Cold
War and in response to the perceived limitations of mainstream international
relations theories, particularly realism and neorealism. Rather than accepting the
state as the sole referent object of security and military threats as the central
concern, critical security studies (CSS) question the assumptions underlying these
views and advocate for a broader, deeper, and more emancipatory understanding of
security.

Main Answer:

Concepts, Key Points, and Highlights:

1. Foundations and Evolution:

The critical approach, especially within the Welsh School of Critical Security
Studies (CSS), draws on Frankfurt School Critical Theory, notably the work of
thinkers like Jürgen Habermas and Antonio Gramsci. According to Booth and Wyn
Jones, the purpose of security studies should not just be to explain or manage
conflict, but to transform the conditions that cause insecurity through a process of
emancipation.

2. Security as a Derivative Concept:

Security is not a fixed or universal concept. It is "derivative" because it depends on

deeper assumptions about politics, identity, and power. CSS critiques the realist idea
of security as state survival, arguing instead that security should center on human
individuals and communities.

3. Broadening and Deepening Security:

CSS expands the agenda of security studies to include non-military issues such as
poverty, environmental degradation, and political oppression. Wyn Jones and Booth
stress the need to move beyond mere survival towards the goal of “living” securely
— that is, to address the material and social conditions that prevent people from
realizing their full human potential.
4. Emancipation as the Core Principle:

For Ken Booth, "emancipation, not power or order, produces true security" (Booth
1991: 319). Emancipation refers to freeing individuals and groups from constraints
that hinder them from achieving their potential. CSS views emancipation as a
continuous process, not a final goal, which requires attention to diverse and
context-specific insecurities.

5. Praxis and the Theory-Practice Nexus:

CSS emphasizes the connection between theory and practice (praxis). Theory
should not just interpret the world, but help change it. Analysts are encouraged to act
as “organic intellectuals,” providing critical insight that empowers social movements
and fosters emancipatory change.

6. Non-Eurocentric and Postcolonial Influences:

The critical approach has been critiqued and expanded upon by postcolonial
scholars. Mohammed Ayoob’s "subaltern realism" argues for recognizing the unique
security challenges of the Global South, rooted in colonial history, weak state
institutions, and internal conflict. Barkawi and Laffey advocate for decolonizing
security studies and understanding how Western-centric narratives marginalize
non-Western experiences.

Relevant Cases and Comparisons:​

Subaltern Realism (Ayoob) focuses on state security in the Third World, emphasizing
the nexus between internal and external threats, and the ongoing challenges of
state-building post-decolonization. While Ayoob criticizes the expansionist definitions
of security by critical theorists, he retains a realist commitment to the state as the
primary security actor.​
Welsh School (Booth, Wyn Jones) places the individual at the center, advocating for
human emancipation. This contrasts with Ayoob’s statist orientation, revealing a
divide within critical perspectives about who or what should be the referent object of
security.

Criticism:
1. Statist Residues in Subaltern Realism:

Critics like Keith Krause argue that Ayoob’s approach, though critical of the West,
remains trapped in realist paradigms by prioritizing state security — often equating it
with regime security — even if the state is a source of oppression for its own people.

2. Ambiguity in Emancipatory Praxis:

The Welsh School’s vision of emancipation has been critiqued for being vague and
idealistic. While promoting human freedom and security, it often lacks specific
pathways for institutional or practical transformation, leading to accusations of
normative overreach.

3. Western-Centrism in Critical Theory:

Although CSS claims to critique Western dominance, it is itself rooted in Western

intellectual traditions. Scholars like Barkawi and Laffey call for truly non-Eurocentric
perspectives that consider the histories and lived experiences of the Global South,
warning against simply repackaging Western liberal ideals as global norms.

4. Poststructuralist Concerns:

Poststructuralist critics argue that CSS may inadvertently reintroduce fixed binaries
(e.g., secure/insecure, emancipated/oppressed) and universalist claims under the
guise of criticality, thus contradicting its own ethos of contextual and plural
understandings of security.

Conclusion:​
The critical approach to security challenges the dominant paradigms of traditional
security studies by exposing their limitations, particularly the narrow focus on state
and military threats. Through concepts like emancipation, broadened agendas, and
the focus on individuals and communities, critical security studies seek to create a
more just and inclusive framework. Nevertheless, internal disagreements —
particularly between statist and non-statist critical theorists — as well as concerns
about Western biases and practical applicability, indicate that the critical approach is
still evolving. It invites scholars and practitioners to rethink the meaning, purpose,
and practice of security in a complex and unequal world.