Fall

International Security in the Age of

Globalization
Eunice Banchiri Omaita
In the wake of globalization, terrorist activities have culminated and gained attention through
the Internet and popular mass media. The recent ISIL beheadings, al-Shabaab attacks in
Nairobi, and other terrorist attacks raise significant issues regarding international security in
the contemporary world. Traditionally, security was provided by the state, and thus a states
resource and military capability determined the ability of a state to protect its borders and
individual citizens from external attacks. The contemporary issues about security have
introduced multilayered complexities that cannot be addressed by the traditional methods of
security. The concept of security has become harder to define as scholars continue to grapple
with the new challenges that have been brought about by the process of globalization. It has
thus become imperative for scholars and policymakers to understand the emerging security
issues in order to formulate frameworks and policies of dealing with the issues.

14

Bamzi Banchiri
Julie Blase
Globalization
11/20/2014
International Security in the Age of Globalization
Introduction
In the wake of globalization, terrorist activities have culminated and gained attention
through the Internet and popular mass media. The recent ISIL beheadings, al-Shabaab attacks in
Nairobi, and other terrorist attacks raise significant issues regarding international security in the
contemporary world. Traditionally, security was provided by the state, and thus a states resource
and military capability determined the ability of a state to protect its borders and individual
citizens from external attacks1. The contemporary issues about security have introduced
multilayered complexities that cannot be addressed by the traditional methods of security.2 The
concept of security has become harder to define as scholars continue to grapple with the new
challenges that have been brought about by the process of globalization. It has thus become
imperative for scholars and policymakers to understand the emerging security issues in order to
formulate frameworks and policies of dealing with the issues.
To understand the contemporary studies about security, this paper aims to trace the
historical evolution of the international security concept, starting with the Cold War period, the
interdependence period, and finally the post-Cold War, and globalization period. This paper will
examine key historical periods such as the Cold War, the OPEC 1973 embargo, post-Cold War
period, the contemporary globalization age, and the 9/11 terrorists attacks. This paper will also

Christopher Hughes, "Reflections on Globalisation, Security and 9/11," Cambridge

Review of International Affairs 15, no. 3 (October 2002): 421-423, accessed September 14, 2014,
Political Science Complete (10909938).
2
Hughes, "Reflections on Globalisation, Security," 421-423.
2

examine how various traditional and non-traditional theories of international relations have
contributed to the understanding of the globalized security period.
The globalization phenomenon has been a debatable issue among various scholars who
identify as globalists, pessimists, as well as those who identify as chronic analysts. Globalists
accept that globalization is a process that is present and transforming contemporary world affairs
including economics, politics, social issues, and culture. Pessimists on the other hand are mostly
scholars who question whether globalization is a new phenomenon, and whether it is different
from the processes of communication and market boom economy that were felt in the period
before the onset of World War I. Some pessimists are state-centric scholars and realists who
reject the idea that globalization has significantly reduced the states capability to exert control
over its internal affairs.3 Lastly, chronic analysts can be identified as the scholars who
acknowledge both the arguments of the globalists and the pessimists. These scholars thus take
elements from both sides of the argument and use them to form their own arguments and
opinions about globalization.4
According to those who identify as globalists, globalization can be defined as a spatial
process. A process that is able to transcend geographical spaces, such that something that
happens locally has an impact on a global scale. Globalization is thus:
Not an event, but a gradual and ongoing expansion of interaction processes, forms of
organization, and forms of cooperation outside the traditional spaces defined by

Victor Cha, "Globalization and the Study of International Security," Journal of Peace
Research 37, no. 3 (May 2000): 391-394, accessed September 14, 2014, JSTOR.
4
John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An
Introduction to International Relations, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press,
2008), 269.
3

sovereignty. Activity takes place in a less localized, less insulated way as transcontinental
and interregional patterns criss-cross and overlap one another.5
Those who are opposed to the globalization phenomenon cite the early forms of communication
and interactions that were observed during the economic boom in the beginning of the 20th
century. Globalists however point out that the aforementioned forces of interactions were
territorialized, while globalization has had the ability to transcend geographical and physical
spaces. The advancement in technology has increased the scope and speed of information
transfer than ever before.6
The process of globalization has often been framed as an increase in economic
integration among states, state-actors, multinational corporations, and individual citizens. Most
scholars have thus focused on the global economy, the increasing role played by multinational
corporations and individual citizens.7 The impact of globalization on security, however, has not
received as much attention. Victor Cha asserts that the effect of globalization on economics is
measurable, unlike the effects of security. He says security effects such as the easy access to
technology and weapons of mass destruction is hard to measure. He writes,
at the far end of globalization-security spectrum might be the salience of sub-state
extremist groups or fundamentalist groups because their ability to organize
transnationally, meet virtually, and utilize terrorist tactics has been substantially enhanced
by the globalization of technology and information.8
Cases of terrorism are increasingly becoming a danger to individual states. The scope of physical
danger has thus been broadened as new identities of extremist behavior continue to emerge. It is
5

Victor Cha, "Globalization and the Study of International Security," Journal of Peace
Research 37, no. 3 (May 2000): 392, accessed September 14, 2014, JSTOR.
6
Baylis, Smith, and Owens, The Globalization of World, 269.
7
Christopher Rudolph, "Globalization and Security: Migration and Evolving Conceptions
of Security in Statecraft and Scholarship," Security Studies 13, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 3-7, accessed
September 19, 2014, Political Science Complete.
8
Cha, "Globalization and the Study," 393.
4

thus necessary to broaden security studies to encompass all the effects of a highly globalized
world.
The greatest factors arguably facilitating the rise terrorism include the easy access to
major forms of communication such as the Internet, social media use, and video transfer through
advanced cell phone technology. The easy flow and access of information brought about by
globalization has enabled terrorists to send political messages as well as messages of terror
across the globe.9 These tools of communication give terrorists a sense of power, as the messages
of terror are able to cause panic and spark international reactions among various state actors.
Sean Kay uses the term asymmetrical power in reference to how channels of
communication enable terrorists to threaten otherwise great states with advanced resources and
military capability. He writes, When asymmetrical power is employed, the actual targets that
are hit are important, but the real battleground takes place over the waves and networks of
television and other globalized means of communication.10 Equally important is the scope of
terrorism and agents of terrorist activities. Both states and non-states actors are capable of
acquiring new technologies that develop weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, states that
are seen as weak in terms of resources and military capabilities have the ability to threaten
stronger states.11 Irans nuclear prowess would for instance pose a threat to the United States,
even though Irans resources are limited when compared to those of the United States.
Globalization has further facilitated various processes of identity formation among
various transnational terrorist organizations in various parts of the world. The Internet has
9

Sean Kay, "Globalization, Power, and Security," Security Dialogue 35, no. 1 (March
2004): 15, accessed November 10, 2014, Political Science Complete.
10
Kay, "Globalization, Power, and Security," 15.
11
Ibid.
5

allowed individuals to access information that influences their political views. Various terrorist
actors are linked through channels of communication that allow them to share ideas and
information pertaining to their terrorist activities. Technology has thus allowed these groups to
perform terrorist activities on wider geographical scales without having to travel to the specific
areas.12 An individual in the United States, for example, may identify with the ideologies of
ISIL, as the Internet allows him or her to receive ISIL messages. Traditional solutions to security
issues such as military use, deterrence and compulsion have thus become less significant in
tackling the contemporary issues that have been facilitated by the process of globalization.
Global inequality is perhaps the key factor used to explain the emergence of terrorism
and terrorist activities. Globalization and the increased integration of economies has benefitted a
few individuals, while others have been negatively affected. The increased poverty and
inequality has created conditions for crime and terrorist behavior.13 Although scholars cannot
directly link increased poverty as a source for crime and terrorism, the latter creates conditions of
desperation and hopelessness that may resort to extremist behavior. Some scholars posit that the
increase in terrorist activities is a backlash to globalization. They argue that the United States
receives a lot of backlash because of its identity as a global power that has highly benefitted from
the global economy. Anti-US sentiments have been common, and particularly in the Middle East,
the main area thats often affected by extremists behavior and terrorist activities.
To cope with the increasing insurgency, extremism and terrorism, scholars and policy
makers, have been forced to devise new terms mechanisms that incorporate the effects of
12

Damon Coletta, "Unipolarity, Globalization, and the War on Terror: Why Security
Studies Should Refocus on Comparative Defense," International Studies Review 9, no. 3
(September 2007): 385-388, accessed October 8, 2014, Political Science Complete.
13
Rudolph, "Globalization and Security: Migration," 4-7.
6

globalization in the contemporary world. The scope of the terrorist activities, the constant change
of tactical methods employed by terrorists and extremists have forced the studies of international
security to shift its focus from the traditional military capability to new forms that encompass
technology and methods of communication and cooperation among allies. Cha posits that its
difficult for individual states to confront terrorism and extremism behavior. He writes, ...one
would expect globalized security processes reflected in a states striving for regional
coordination and cooperative security. It should emphasize not exclusivity and bilateralism in
relations but inclusivity and multilateralism as the best way to solve security problems.14 One
issue that could emerge however is disagreement on what should constitute as a threat. Because
of securitization, a threat to one state may not necessarily pose a threat to another. It is thus
imperative that a global agreements and understandings about security threats are provided
The theoretical framework for security studies
Realism remains as the main theory that is often used to explain security issues. Because
of its assumptions, realism provides an easier framework -to states and policy makers- of
approaching security issues. Realism posits security as the concern for states. Realists thus argue
that because the international system is anarchic, states are forced to seek self-help. They argue
that the international system is highly competitive, and thus states have to be distrustful of their
competitors.15 The theory therefore depicts state-security as a conditioned that is predetermined
by anarchy, and power. Because of its emphasis on state-security, realism disregards the
significance of domestic politics and the contribution of individual citizens within the state. The
theory has thus been criticized for disregarding an integral part that makes the state.
14

Cha, "Globalization and the Study," 398.

Jack Donnelly, "Realism," in Theories of International Relations, by Scott Burchill, 5th
ed. (Basingstoke, Hampshire [U.K.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 32-33
15

Additionally, the end of the Cold War was followed by increased criticism as realism failed to
explain the fall of such a great power. The emergence of globalization highlighted the
shortcomings of the theory in the study of international security. The emergence of non-state
actors, the rise of terrorist groups, and flow of information across borders has further illustrated
the limited scope of realism.16
The study of international security has thus been highly criticized for narrowly focusing
on state security and the use of military power. During the cold war period, international security
focused on the bipolar nature of the international system: the ideological battle between the
United States and the Soviet Union, the security dilemma that resulted from the battle, and the
nuclear capability of both powers as a deterrent method.17 Realism was therefore very good at
explaining the Cold War power dynamics between the aforementioned major powers. The realist
assumptions that the international system is anarchic, and that the state is a unitary actor in
international security provided a simple theoretical framework to explain the contest between the
US and the Soviet Union. Realists such as Waltz postulated state security as the main concern for
the aforementioned powers, and thus framed their ideological battle as a power contest geared
toward protecting their individual security interests. In this regard, other factors of international
relations such as economics were deemed as low politics, and hence, their significance was
ignored.18

16

Donnelly, "Realism," in Theories of International Relations, 32-33.

Jonathan Kirshner, "Globalization, American Power, and International Security,"
Political Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science 123, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 371-374,
accessed November 8, 2014, Political Science Complete.
18
Kirshner, "Globalization, American Power, and International," 371-374.
17

The emergence of the interdependence at the height of the Cold War marked a period that
shifted the concept of international security. The interdependence period, particularly the oil
embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), broadened the
framework for international security studies. The oil producing countries majorly comprised of
Middle Eastern states exercised their power by limiting a key resource for energy needed by
various states, including the two major world powers. Scholars of international security were
thus forced to recognize the importance of economics, a factor that had otherwise been ignored.
Barry Buzan is the most influential scholar credited for developing the study of
international security. Buzan was highly critical of the realist framework used to depict
international security. In his writing in the 1980s he observed that international security studies
had been state-centric and disregarding of individual citizens and non-physical security issues
that affected them. He acknowledged that states have the role of protection, but also argued that a
state could still be the source of threat to the human security of its citizens. Buzan identified
factors such as poverty, inequality, disease, and environmental issues, among others, as
additional elements of international security that had been ignored by traditional security studies.
His contribution, deemed significant, was consequently adopted by constructivists who were
interested in international security studies.
The constructivist framework for international security has been very significant in
explaining security issues, particularly post-Cold War, and the emergence of globalization.
Alexander Wendts ideas of identity formation have significantly transformed international
security studies. Wendt argues that state security is determined by the identities that are formed
through state interactions. He contends that identities are not static, but constantly changing
according to the new ideas and interactions that a state is exposed to. He is therefore very critical
9

of the realist depiction of security as pre-determined by the material structures of the

international system such as anarchy.19 He, however, does not deny the existence of the
aforementioned material structures, but argues that it is the states interpretations that give them
meaning.20 For instance, the United States perceives Canada as an ally while it sees North Korea
as an enemy and a threat. The United States security policy toward these two therefore depends
on its identity in relation to each of the countries. Wendt thus recognizes the significance of the
flow of ideas that has been facilitated by the process of globalization and the new forms of
technology and communication tools. His constructivist ideas provide a better framework for
understanding the contemporary security dynamics between states that realism is reluctant to
acknowledge.
Another example of constructivist thinking that has influenced the study of international
security is the emphasis on human security. Human security focuses on the well being of an
individual as opposed to the interests of the state. Human security has become a major concern
particularly after the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War was followed by civil wars
in Somalia, and the genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.21 These events have brought
attention to key issues such as poverty, famine, diseases, environmental degradation among other
issues that impact on the well-being of individuals and society. Human security constructivists
recognize that some of the aforementioned factors have resulted from globalization and its

19

Christian Reus-Smit, "Constructivism," in Theories of International Relations, by Scott

Burchill, 5th ed. (Basingstoke, Hampshire [U.K.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 224-226.
20
Reus-Smit, "Constructivism," in Theories of International Relations, 224-226.
21
Yu-tai Tsai, "The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View," International
Journal of Peace Studies 14, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2009): 21-23, accessed September 15, 2014,
Political Science Complete (5294390).
10

impact on the global economy as well as on the identity formation that is facilitated by the
increased interaction and interconnectedness.22
Additionally, feminists and postmodernists have also contributed alternative ideas of
broadening the understanding of international security. Feminists have highly criticized
traditional security studies. Feminists are very critical of how realism over-emphasizes the
significance of weapons and military capability as the main solution to achieving security. In the
United States, feminists have highly criticized the high amount of money that is constantly spent
on the military, while key issues such as education, inequality, women issues, poverty,
healthcare, and environmental degradation have been ignored. Ann Tickner argues that
prioritizing military spending does not guarantee that security will be achieved. She contends
that security is possible only when everybody is safe.23 The age of globalization has brought to
attention the aforementioned issues that the traditional security studies had previously ignored.
Easy access to information on the Internet and mass media has made individuals aware of these
issues on a global scale, regardless of geographical location.24 Feminist thought has thus been
very critical in broadening the understanding of contemporary security issues.
Post-structuralists critique realisms depiction of anarchy as an objective reality that
determines the security of states. Realists argue that because of anarchy, states are forced to seek
self-help, and power gain thus becomes necessary for their security. Post-structuralists contend
that the realist view uses language that limits the full understanding of the complexities of
security issues. Accordingly, one post-structuralist view asserts, If anarchy and power politics
22

Tsai, "The Emergence of Human," 21-23.

Ann J. Tickner, "Man, the State, and War: Gendered Perspectives on National
Security," in Essential Readings in World Politics, by Karen A. Mingst and Jack L. Snyder, 4th
ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), 85-88.
24
Kapitonenko, "Globalization, Nation-State, and Global," 424-427.
23

11

are not seen as being an endemic feature of global history then other more peaceful approaches
to security might be tried.25 Post-structuralists are therefore concerned with how knowledge and
language has been used to construct an objective world that is either black or white: one that
frames power and military use as the only solutions for security issues. The post-structuralist
school of thought addresses significant factors such as culture and the difference in
interpretations that result from cultural differences. They have thus broadened the scope of
security studies to account for globalization and its effect of cultural exchange. Globalization,
having facilitated the flow of ideas and information, has allowed people to get exposure to
various cultural interpretations about politics, power and security.26
The end of the Cold War ushered in new challenges for policy makers whose
understanding of international security was based on the bipolar world and deterrence period of
the war. Traditionally, security threats have been perceived to have an external origin, such that a
states ability to be secure depended on its resources and military capacity to defend itself against
external attacks by other states. Changes in the international system after the Soviet Union
disintegrated into smaller states have led to the formation of various identities that have clashed
against one another.27 The wars in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, and the genocide in
Rwanda, illustrate the shift and complexity of the international security concept. The process of
globalization characterized by the increased flow of people and information across the borders
has further complicated the understanding of security. As wars between states declined, new
threats such as rebel militia groups, terrorist organizations and other similar groups have

25

Baylis, Smith, and Owens, The Globalization of World, 267-267.

Ibid.
27
Hughes, "Reflections on Globalisation, Security," 421-424.
26

12

emerged. The easy access to advanced technology and forms of communication has provided
non-state actors the ability to threaten states as well as individual citizens.28 It has thus become
harder to distinguish between external and internal threats to security.
The most significant trend that has been clear is the shift from state-centric security to
human security. The latter places significance on individual people and the various identities
they possess. The 1994 United Nations Development Program Report titled New Dimensions of
Human Security marked yet another major turning point towards a broader understanding of
international security. Ivan Ruxandra writes, Human security can be said to have two main
aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And
second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life.29
The human security approach is a response to the issues that have accompanied the process of
globalization, and effects of the global economy that have benefitted some individuals and left
others in a state of poverty, inequality and other adverse effects. Human security thus focuses on
the social and economic well being of individuals, in addition to the security threats that may
inflict physical harm on them.
Lida Bteddini posits that it is hard to identify the threat to human security as external and
internal threats become increasingly entangled as a result of globalization. She thus contends,
Realization of human security involves a much broader participation of various actors, such as
international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and civil society itself.30 Because
of globalization and the complexity of the human security factors, it becomes harder for
28

Hughes, "Reflections on Globalisation, Security," 421-424.

Ivan Ruxandra, "Deconstructing Security," Romanian Journal of Political Science 11,
no. 2 (Winter 2011): 112-113, accessed October 7, 2014, Political Science Complete.
30
Lida Bteddini, "Writing Security: Human Security," Human Security Journal 8 (Spring
2009): 115-117, digital file.
29

13

individual states to single-handedly cater to the security needs of each individual. Human
security has thus been framed as a responsibility that should be assumed by the international
community. Cooperation between various states, non-state actors, international organizations and
multinational corporations is therefore very critical at this age of globalization and
interconnectedness.
The human security approach has however proved hard to conceptualize and has thus
evolved over the years. The UNs definition of human security encompasses many elements that
could include factors such as depression, according to some scholars.31 It thus becomes difficult
to distinguish factors of human security, and identify those that call for the involvement of the
international community. Roxandra traces the evolution of language used by key actors in the
United Nations in an attempt to conceptualize terms or situations that would qualify for
assistance from the international community. This complexity of the human security concept led
to the emergence of the humanitarian intervention concept. According to the United Nations, the
concept of humanitarian intervention allows capable states to intervene in war areas to protect
civilians from war crimes; possible acts of genocide, human rights violations and other warrelated atrocities. Humanitarian intervention, though narrowed when compared to human
security, has had its share of criticism from various actors. These actors, according to scholars,
have focused on the word intervention. The actors often the aggressors of the war crimes
have used the non-intervention norm of the Westphalia sovereignty to deter any forms of
intervention from the international community.

31

Tsai, "The Emergence of Human," 22-23.

14

As a result of the controversy, concept has shifted from humanitarian intervention to

Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun first coined the term R2P
in 2001. Evans and Sahnoun wrote a report for the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty (ICISS). The report stipulated that the international community has a
responsibility to protect citizens of a country when: 1) the government of that country is not
willing to protect its citizens, and 2) the government is incapable of protecting its citizens.32
Scholars such as Francis Deng have used the R2P concept to advocate the need for the
international community to respond to humanitarian crises such as war atrocities, genocide and
other crimes against humanity. Deng has argued that sovereignty should be earned, and that a
state that is not able to provide and protect its citizens is not sovereign.33 Failed states such as
Somalia and Syria illustrate situations where R2P would apply. The concept of R2P has further
been facilitated by the age of globalization that has allowed local events to have an impact on a
global scale. The Syrian Civil War, for instance, has sparked global reactions as individuals are
able to access news and videos of the mass atrocities being committed there. The easy flow and
access to information has raised awareness among the public and has often led the latter to
pressure their governments to respond to such crises.
Another major trend that has shifted the concept of security in the age of globalization is
the securitization of political issues. Ole Waever defines securitization as the process of taking a
political issue and deeming it a security threat. Waever says that it is only the political elites who
32

Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, "The Responsibility to Protect," Foreign Affairs
81, no. 6 (November/December 2002): 99-110, accessed April 7, 2014, Political Science
Complete (7568988)
33
Francis Deng, "From 'Sovereignty as Responsibility' to the 'Responsibility to Protect,'"
Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (October 2010): 353-370, accessed March 10, 2014,
Political Science Complete (54530158)
15

have the ability of securitizing an issue.34 The influence that political elites possess allows them
to convince the public that a certain issue is a threat to security, and once the public believes the
politician, the issue is officially declared a threat.
As mentioned earlier, globalization has broadened security studies to include human
security. Equally important is the identification of societal security that has been brought about
by globalization and the increased interactions between societies. Societal security thus focuses
on the various identities that make up that particular society. Threats to identity have thus been
recognized as an issue that needs to be included in security studies.35 Roxandra, however, notes
Buzans argument that identity threats are not clear or as recognizable as military threats are. She
writes, Security threats are performed through speech acts; they only exist if they are perceived
as such; and they come to be perceived by a society if there is a political actor which emphasizes
them.36 A good example is the war on drugs that the US has been fighting in Latin America
since the Clinton administration declared drug trafficking a threat to the security of the United
States.
David Campbells writing contributes to the above argument about identity formation and
securitization that have both been trends of security policy in the age of globalization. In
Writing about Security Campbell posits that unipolarity and globalization have enabled the
United States to form an identity that is exceptionally different from other states in the
international system. He says that the US has framed itself as different in relation to other
countries. By operating using borders, the United States has defined external states, individuals
and organizations as the other. He says that the US has used its identity to formulate its foreign
34

Ruxandra, "Deconstructing Security," 110.

Ibid
36
Ibid
35

16

policy. By identifying issues and securitizing them, the US has been able to justify its
exceptional behavior that would otherwise spark controversy within the international
community. The 2003 Iraq invasion thus illustrates how the Bush administration securitized the
issue of weapons of mass destruction to justify the US invasion in the former.37
Security post-9/11
The post-9/11 period has been characterized by the re-emergence of the emphasis on
national security. The Twin Towers terrorist attacks caused terror in the country and exposed the
vulnerability of the United States. What followed is the declaration of war on terror by the Bush
administration. The former Presidents address to the nation urged Americans to be united in
order to fight the war on terror.38 According to some scholars, the terror attacks strengthened
Americans allegiance to the states as citizens turned to the government for protection. As a
result, the United States formed an identity of a state united to fight against terrorism, and called
on its allies to join in the war. Bushs famous words you are with us or against us reinforced
the USs identity, and in effect, any state that would not support the United States was bound to
be deemed as a threat to its security.39
According to Buzan, the post-9/11 period has ushered in a period of macro-securitization.
He likens the period to the Cold War era when state security was the major component of the
USs foreign policy in major parts of the world, particularly Latin America, Asia and the Middle
East. In this regard, the United States, as a unipolar power, gets to decide what issues can be
regarded as threats to international security. Macro-securitization of terrorism has enabled the
37

David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), 7-12, digital file.
38
Coletta, "Unipolarity, Globalization, and the War on Terror," 388-391.
39
Ibid
17

United States to take exceptional actions such as the 2003 Iraq invasion. He contends that the US
has framed the war on terror as an international issue that should be of concern on a daily basis.40
The securitization of terror has further seen greater states invade failed states in order to fight
terrorists that may be harboring in those states. Amitav Acharya asserts that the US war on terror
presents the view that states that harbor terrorists could not be protected by the non-intervention
norm and thus can be invaded in the quest to curb terrorism.41
What follows are concerns regarding the macro-securitization of the war on terror. Buzan
contends that the framing of terrorism as an issue that should be of concern on a daily basis
allows the United States to justify its infringement on the liberal values of its people. Individual
citizens are thus required to give up part of their privacy to enable the government protect the
country from internal and external security threats. Marion Young has argued that states use
national security cases such as 9/11 to legitimize human rights violations. She writes, The Bush
administration has mobilized the language of fear and threat to gain support for constricting
liberty and dissent inside the United States and waging war outside. This stronger U.S. security
state offers a bargain to its citizens: obey our commands and support our security actions, and we
will ensure your protection.42 A recent example that illustrates such an infringement is the
leaked documents that that showed how the government has been using video surveillance to
monitor daily activities of individual citizens.
40

Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in
the Post-cold War Era, 2nd ed. (Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, 2007), 258-265.
41
Amitav Acharya, "State Sovereignty after 9/11: Disorganised Hypocrisy," Political
Studies 55, no. 2 (June 2007): 277, accessed March 21, 2014, Political Science Complete
(25065558).
42
Iris Marion Young, "The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current
Security State" [Vol. 29, No. 1, Autumn 2003], The University of Chicago Press 29, no. 1 (Fall
2003): 387, accessed April 1, 2014, DOI:10.1086/375708
18

Conclusion
International security is a complex concept that continues to dominate the field of
international relations. Traditionally, security has been states-centric and thus understood in
terms of resources and military capability, which enables a state to protect its borders from
external attacks. International security studies have -over a long period of time- focused on
mechanisms such as military tactics, deterrence and compellence methods as the major solution
to international security. The new era of globalization has however, introduced new elements and
challenges that question the traditional framework of security studies. Globalization has been
accompanied by a period of high technology, easy access to information and the increased flow
of people across borders. The process of globalization has also brought attention to issues such as
poverty, inequality, diseases and environmental issues. The increase in intra-state wars that
followed after the collapse of the Soviet Union further adds complexities to an already complex
concept. Scholars of international relations have thus been forced to re-examine the scope and
framework of security studies in order to broaden the understanding of security in this globalized
age.
The new challenges to the concept of security have consequently raised critical questions
about the traditional theories that have used to explain security for a long time. The end of the
Cold War and the rise of non-state actor thus illustrate the shortcomings of realism, and its
ability to explain contemporary issues in international security. Constructivists, feminists, and
poststructuralists have recognized the contemporary security issues that realism has failed to
account for. Constructivists have broadened the study by introducing ideas about identity
formation and human security. Feminists have critiqued military overspending at the cost of key
issues, while post structuralists have reinforced the significance of culture and intersubjective
19

norms that have an impact of contemporary security issues. The field of security studies is thus
one that needs to be continually broadened to encompass the changing issues that arise on a
regular basis.

20

Bibliography
Acharya, Amitav. "State Sovereignty after 9/11: Disorganised Hypocrisy." Political Studies 55,
no. 2 (June 2007): 274-96. Accessed March 21, 2014. Political Science Complete
(25065558).
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An
Introduction to International Relations. 4th ed. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Brooks, Stephen G. Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the
Changing Calculus of Conflict. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Accessed October 4, 2014. EBSCO eBook Collection.
Bteddini, Lida. "Writing Security: Human Security." Human Security Journal 8 (Spring 2009):
113-17. Digital file.
Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Postcold War Era. 2nd ed. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, 2007.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wver, and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis.
Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Pub., 1998. Digital file.
Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. Digital file.
Cha, Victor. "Globalization and the Study of International Security." Journal of Peace Research
37, no. 3 (May 2000): 391-403. Accessed September 14, 2014. JSTOR.
Coletta, Damon. "Unipolarity, Globalization, and the War on Terror: Why Security Studies
Should Refocus on Comparative Defense." International Studies Review 9, no. 3
(September 2007): 385-406. Accessed October 8, 2014. Political Science Complete.
Croucher, Sheila L. Globalisation and Belonging. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield., 2004. Digital
file.
Deng, Francis. "From 'Sovereignty as Responsibility' to the 'Responsibility to Protect.'" Global
Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (October 2010): 353-70. Accessed March 10, 2014.
Political Science Complete (54530158).
Evans, Gareth, and Mohamed Sahnoun. "The Responsibility to Protect." Foreign Affairs 81, no.
6 (November/December 2002): 99-110. Accessed April 7, 2014. Political Science
Complete (7568988).

21

Hughes,, Christopher. "Reflections on Globalisation, Security and 9/11." Cambridge Review of

International Affairs 15, no. 3 (October 2002): 421-33. Accessed September 14, 2014.
Political Science Complete (10909938).
Kapitonenko, Mykola. "Globalization, Nation-State, and Global Security Arrangements."
Europolis 6 (2009): 585-603. Accessed September 13, 2014. Political Science Complete
(58034964).
Kay, Sean. "Globalization, Power, and Security." Security Dialogue 35, no. 1 (March 2004): 925. Accessed November 10, 2014. Political Science Complete.
Kirshner, Jonathan. "Globalization, American Power, and International Security." Political
Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science 123, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 363-89.
Accessed November 8, 2014. Political Science Complete.
Rudolph, Christopher. "Globalization and Security: Migration and Evolving Conceptions of
Security in Statecraft and Scholarship." Security Studies 13, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 1-32.
Accessed September 19, 2014. Political Science Complete.
Ruxandra, Ivan. "Deconstructing Security." Romanian Journal of Political Science 11, no. 2
(Winter 2011): 105-28. Accessed October 7, 2014. Political Science Complete.
Tsai, Yu-tai. "The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View." International Journal
of Peace Studies 14, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2009): 19-33. Accessed September 15, 2014.
Political Science Complete (5294390).

22