Халықаралық қауіпсіздік: мемлекеттер мен ұйымдардың өзара қауіпсіздігін қамтамасыз ету шаралары

Measures taken by states and international organizations to ensure mutual safety and survival
the academic journal

International security is a term which refers to the measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena. By the end of World War II, a new subject of academic study, security studies, focusing on international security emerged. It began as an independent field of study, but was absorbed as a sub field of international relations. Since it took hold in the 1950s, the study of international security has been at the heart of international relations studies. It covers areas such as security studies, strategic studies, peace studies, and other areas. The meaning of "security" is often treated as a common sense term that can be understood by "unacknowledged consensus". The content of international security has expanded over the years. Today it covers a variety of interconnected issues in the world that affect survival. It ranges from the traditional or conventional modes of military power, the causes and consequences of war between states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, science and technology, food, as well as threats to human security and the stability of states from environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and the activities of non state actors. While the wide perspective of international security regards everything as a security matter, the traditional approach focuses mainly or exclusively on military concerns. and Roland Paris (2004) views it as "in the eye of the beholder". Security has been widely applied to "justify suspending civil liberties, making war, and massively reallocating resources during the last fifty years". Walter Lippmann (1944) views security as the capability of a country to protect its core values, both in terms that a state need not sacrifice core values in avoiding war and can maintain them by winning war. David Baldwin (1997) argues that pursuing security sometimes requires sacrificing other values, including marginal values and prime values. Arnold Wolfers (1952) argues that "security" is generally a normative term. It is applied by nations "in order to be either expedient—a rational means toward an accepted end—or moral, the best or least evil course of action". In the same way that people are different in sensing and identifying danger and threats, Wolfers argues that different nations also have different expectations of security. Not only is there a difference between forbearance of threats, but different nations also face different levels of threats because of their unique geographical, economic, ecological, and political environment. Barry Buzan (2000) views the study of international security as more than a study of threats, but also a study of which threats that can be tolerated and which require immediate action. He sees the concept of security as not either power or peace, but something in between. The concept of an international security actor has extended in all directions since the 1990s, from nations to groups, individuals, international systems, NGOs, and local governments.

The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the Cold War. For almost half a century, major world powers entrusted the security of their nation to a balance of power among states. In this sense international stability relied on the premise that if state security is maintained, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow. Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation state. States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power. In the historical debate on how best to achieve national security, writers like Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rousseau tended to paint a rather pessimistic picture of the implications of state sovereignty. The international system was viewed as a rather brutal arena in which states would seek to achieve their own security at the expense of their neighbors. Inter state relations were seen as a struggle for power, as states constantly attempted to take advantage of each other. According to this view, permanent peace was unlikely to be achieved. All that states could do was to try to balance the power of other states to prevent any one from achieving overall hegemony. This view was shared by writers such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. More recently, the traditional state centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security. Among the approaches which seeks to acknowledge and address these basic threats to human safety are paradigms that include cooperative, comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the individual and, as a result, for the state.

In the field of international relations, realism has long been a dominant theory, from ancient military theories and writings of Chinese and Greek thinkers, Sun Tzu and Thucydides being two of the more notable, to Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau. It is the foundation of contemporary international security studies. The twentieth century classical realism is mainly derived from Edward Hallett Carr's book The Twenty Years' Crisis. The realist views anarchy and the absence of a power to regulate the interactions between states as the distinctive characteristics of international politics. Because of anarchy, or a constant state of antagonism, the international system differs from the domestic system. Realism has a variety of sub schools whose lines of thought are based on three core assumptions: groupism, egoism, and power centrism. According to classical realists, bad things happen because the people who make foreign policy are sometimes bad.

Beginning in the 1960s, with increasing criticism of realism, Kenneth Waltz tried to revive the traditional realist theory by translating some core realist ideas into a deductive, top down theoretical framework that eventually came to be called neorealism. brought together and clarified many earlier realist ideas about how the features of the overall system of states affects the way states interact:

"Neorealism answers questions: Why the modern states system has persisted in the face of attempts by certain states at dominance; why war among great powers recurred over centuries; and why states often find cooperation hard. In addition, the book forwarded one more specific theory: that great power war would tend to be more frequent in multipolarity (an international system shaped by the power of three or more major states) than bipolarity (an international system shaped by two major states, or superpowers)." The main theories of neorealism are balance of power theory, balance of threat theory, security dilemma theory, offense defense theory, hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory.

Liberalism has a shorter history than realism but has been a prominent theory since World War I. It is a concept with a variety of meanings. Liberal thinking dates back to philosophers such as Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant, who argued that republican constitutions produce peace. Kant's concept of Perpetual Peace is arguably seen as the starting point of contemporary liberal thought.

Economic liberalism assumes that economic openness and interdependence between countries makes them more peaceful than countries who are isolated. Eric Gartzke has written that economic freedom is 50 times more effective than democracy in creating peace. Globalization has been important to economic liberalism.

Liberal institutionalism views international institutions as the main factor to avoid conflicts between nations. Liberal institutionalists argue that; although the anarchic system presupposed by realists cannot be made to disappear by institutions; the international environment that is constructed can influence the behavior of states within the system. Varieties of international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international non governmental organizations (INGOs) are seen as contributors to world peace. Some believe that these international institutions lead to neotrusteeship, or postmodern imperialism. International institutions lead to an interconnectedness between strong and weak or post conflict nations. In a situation such as a collapsed, weak nation without the means of autonomous recovery, international institutions often lead to involvement by a stronger nation to aid in recovery. Because there is no definite international security policy to address weak or post conflict nations, stronger nations sometimes face "mission creep," a shift from supplying and aiding nations to an escalation of mission goals, when aiding weaker nations. In addition, there is some debate due to lack of testing that international intervention is not the best institution to aid weak or post war nations. Possible mission creep, as well as inefficiencies in international intervention, creates debate as to the effectiveness of international institutions in peacekeeping.

Since its founding in the 1980s, constructivism has become an influential approach in international security studies. "It is less a theory of international relations or security, however, than a broader social theory which then informs how we might approach the study of security." Constructivists argue that security is a social construction. They emphasize the importance of social, cultural and historical factors, which leads to different actors construing similar events differently.