Global Security Assignment PDF

Running head: GLOBAL SECURITY
GLOBAL SECURITY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

GLOBAL SECURITY 1
Essay question: Which theoretical approach to the study of global security best explains
the contemporary security challenges faced by states and non-state actors?
Introduction:
Global security is the diplomatic and military measures that the global organisations
like United Nations and NATO undertake in order to ensure a global security and mutual
safety. Security is a value laden concept that often creates a disagreement in theory and in
practice and it suggests more than just physical security like securing from physical attack.
Global and international security often refers to the security of individual citizens and the
communities from the various threats and attacks. In the view point of Lundestad and
Jakobsen, (2013), both realists and the liberals are found to focus on the global security and
their major aim remains to address the international threats by the action of the military
forces. However, the states always have to maintain a diplomatic situation to maintain a level
of peace and harmony. Global security attempts to address both interstate and national
security challenges and protects individuals as well as communities in war and peace. The
essay attempts at understanding the concept of global security and its role in the
contemporary situation. The theoretical approach of the global security that explains the
security challenges faced by the states shall be taken into account in understanding the
various reasons of wars and the role of the organisations responsible for the global security.
The role and challenges faced by the state and non-state actors shall be discussed throughout
the essay.
Theoretical approach towards global security:
The theoretical approach towards the global security helps to understand the
complexities of the security and insecurity and the value dilemma that actually helps in
solving the issues of the security. Rationalism, the positivism approach explains that the

GLOBAL SECURITY 2
social and the political phenomenon can be explained by the means of explaining the natural
world and it does not depend on the empirical validation and falsification (Noortmann,
Reinisch & Ryngaert, 2015). Thus, it is the common belief of the actors and non-actors that
the reason of war and conflict depends on the demands of the instrumental reason rather than
any other predetermined causes. If the theoretical concepts of global security are taken into
consideration, it can be said that the security issues between USA and USSR during the Cold
War is a dominant realism approach; it was in response to the liberal idealism. In contrary to
this concept, Carr believed that the reason behind the World War I was a reason of the
utopian thinking that actually leads to the World War II (Lundestad, & Jakobsen, 2013). It is
a common observation that the realists and the liberals disagree over the mix of law,
diplomacy and enforcement to be used as way of dealing with certain threats. Realists on the
other hand argue that the law and the institutions are the one who are capable of dealing with
the threats and undue violence against a particular state or country.
Political realism is considered as the oldest international theory that deals with
international politics and global security. According to the theories of realism, it provides
self-help and primary motivation because a state can help them and that no other state or
international system can actually help another country (Fukuyama, 2017). However, there
always remain an innate desire for power and political stability and so the issue of the
security system persist. Also, realism set the strategies for the countries to remain more
powerful by maximising the power by making international alliance (Noortmann, Reinisch &
Ryngaert, 2015). For example, the North Korea’s war with nuclear weapon that resulted in
mass destruction is a valid example for the realism approach undertaken by a nation for
increasing their power in the international forum. It was found that in the late 1990s North
Korea delegates its relationship with the other nations including China, Russia, Japan to
provide them nuclear facility in return of fuel aid and normalisation (Fukuyama, 2017). Other

GLOBAL SECURITY 3
actions made by the nation helped to declare itself as the powerful nation. Similar situation
was evident in terms of the countries like China and Arabs where the nuclear weapons were
used as a means of establishing political dominance in the world politics and created a major
concern for the global security (Miller & Rose, 2017).
The role of state and non-state actors in national and global security:
The states and non-states actors are facing security challenges in the contemporary
situation. Asymmetric Warfare can be considered as one of the most serious challenges that
the state and non-state actors are facing in the recent time. It has become very challenging
and non-predictive for the nations and militaries to understand the contemporary complexities
and addressing the issue from different aspects (Acht, Mahmoud & Thiele, 2015). In fact,
there has been a rise of violent strategic landscape that has created a severe threat for the state
and non-state actors. It was during the early 1990s when there was a change in the global
landscape and a bipolar system of the world ceased to exist. The overwhelming impact of the
globalisation that has resulted in the deformation of the geographical locations can also be
regarded as one of the reasons of the global security challenges (Fukuyama, 2017). It has
been evident that after the WWII, the states face certain internal security challenges as well.
It is only that when the international law widened, it aimed at protecting individuals and
communities in the war and peace. As a result of this, there was the introduction of few laws
and rights like the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1949 Geneva Conventions
that covers the conduct in wars and the treatment of the non-combatants (Baldwin, 1995).
Impact of globalisation on state and non-state actors:
With the advent of the globalisation, the state and non-state actors are found to
struggle more on the security issues of the nation. RJ Rummel argued that the security
organisations do not always attempt to provide security or improve the security of the

GLOBAL SECURITY 4
communities but there have been many instances that showed that the communities had to
suffer more at the expense of the greater security for the elites and other important people of
the nation (Ikenberry, 1999). One of the major challenges that the nations are facing in the
recent time on the global security is the unipolar security system of the US. If the unipolar
international order of the US-dominated security system is taken into consideration, it can
be said that America enjoys a global power in the military, political, technological as well as
economic condition (Noortmann, Reinisch & Ryngaert, 2015). There is no doubt that no
other country can match the power and strength that this country has. The country that
emerged from the Cold War as the only superpower in the world and it grew in a faster pace
than Europe or Japan. As commented by Boot (2003), Russia and China came out only as
regional powers and thus, the countries ceased in offering any sort of ideological challenges
to the West. It was from the time being that USA emerged as a most powerful nation and the
world entered the age of the American Unipolarity. As a result of the democratic community,
the country has provided a foundation and operating logic in order to operate in the far post
war era (Miller & Rose, 2017). The unipolar system cannot be considered as more secure
than the world used to be just for the fact that being a powerful nation, the country has been
dominating over the other regions of the world. US have always been directly and indirectly
accused on being involved in the world wide war or tragedy that various nations go through.
Nuclear weapons affecting the role of state and non-state actors:
Nuclear weapons have been used as a major weapon of mass destruction and it has
been a great power for the alternate weapons used for the destruction and defeat of the nation
and has been equally become a great threat for the other nations. As pointed out by Stokes,
(2018), nuclear weapon has always given the chances to both the countries in action to fight
in the war. The conventional military level of the countries has to be increased in order to
make sure that there is a greater capability of the nations to win at the conventional level.

GLOBAL SECURITY 5
There has a revolution in the military affairs and the West and other countries have become
more or less secure as a result of the revolution (Stokes, 2018). The revolution in military
affairs (RMA) has given the armed forces of the US a decisive advantage. The military
hardware cannot be easily translated into the political result. The war between US and Iraq
can be considered as an example of the very concept (Soltani & Yusoff, 2012). During the
Iraq war under Saddam, the weather of the country was not suitable for war and the military
had to suffer a lot due to the excruciating sand storms, but the war did not end because the
concept of RMA is to move forward without considering any kind of risk associated with the
war. One can only achieve victory by considering new weapons and strategies played against
the war to improve the capabilities for risk compensation (Ikenberry, 1999). This way the US
military has become more secure in its step towards the war and has been found to be more
secure in its operations and wars against the various nations.
There has been a long debate on understanding what nuclear weapons could do to the
world. Lundestad and Jakobsen, (2013) argued that nuclear weapons have only proliferated
vertically to have added nuclear power to their arsenals. However, the nuclear power has
been found to be slow when it spread towards the other countries. The classical deterrence
theory that is derived from the Realist paradigm of the international politics in the
international politics and this can be divided into two theories, the structural deterrence
theory and the decision-theoretic deterrence theory (Baldwin, 1995). It has been assumed that
the members of the nuclear weapons family will increase as more countries will take the
utilisation of these weapons. For instance, India and Iraq were counted as the new members
of the nuclear families. The saying more may be better might create a greater threat to the
world when it comes to the use of the nuclear weapons (Paris, 2001). It has been a common
observation that the most powerful countries like America and Russia have been the direct
members of the nuclear family but there are other countries that are equally coming up with

GLOBAL SECURITY 6
strategies to use the nuclear weapons. As a result of this, an anarchic situation is created
(Noortmann, Reinisch & Ryngaert, 2015). For instance, France and Germany acted as a
classic case of two adversaries and used to neglect the defence army of each other. Germany
had always preferred to favour offence over the defence believing the fact that offence is the
best way to defend a country and had always avoided any kind of clash or fight between the
two countries (Acht, Mahmoud & Thiele, 2015). However, when a country has the
opportunity to dominate other country by using the nuclear power, it is a common
observation that the vulnerability and the fear of attack increases. This is when the non-state
actors are found to be more wielding and get more influenced on the global politics.
National security considering state and non-state actors:
Focusing on the national security, the concept of the international security for the state
and non-state actors has become more vulnerable. Globalisation has definitely a major role to
play that actually influenced the global security in terms of economic changes or the
technological development (Fukuyama, 2017). Reaction to globalisation can be considered as
a broader threat to the nation as it has brought specifically economic disparity and inequality
that has resulted in a situation of global unrest and also ignited international terrorism and
civil wars. The democratic political situation has reduced the power of the state and has
influenced the role of the individuals and the non-state actors (Reinalda, 2016). The non-state
actors have also been stressed in responding towards the increasing cases of terrorism. The
issue of social realm and security has come down to a holistic approach where the non-state
actors are being questioned on their role in the global security (Noortmann, Reinisch &
Ryngaert, 2015).
Conclusion:

GLOBAL SECURITY 7
The detailed discussion carried out throughout the essay has explained the fact that
the world is troubled and is experiencing more challenges than ever. There is no doubt on the
fact that the world is threated with the catastrophes like natural calamities, global epidemics
and others but the world is equally threatened with the civil wars, rampant terrorism,
authoritarian rule and the increasing rate of crime and violence. The state and non-state actors
are responsible for the national as well as the global security. The liberal means of flow of
information for global security has enabled some space for the non-state actors to transfer
their job role in a better way. The non-state actors are also gradually adopting the role of the
state actors in terms of providing security to the nation and counter terrorism. From the
discussion, it can be easily said that the state and non-state actors are facing contemporary
global security challenges as a result of increasing impact of globalisation, state terrorism and
other factors.

GLOBAL SECURITY 8
Reference list:
Acht, M., Mahmoud, T. O., & Thiele, R. (2015). Corrupt governments do not receive more
state-to-state aid: Governance and the delivery of foreign aid through non-state
actors. Journal of Development Economics, 114, 20-33.
Baldwin, D. A. (1995). Security studies and the end of the Cold War. World politics, 48(1),
117-141.
Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2011). The new politics of protection? Côte d'Ivoire,
Libya and the responsibility to protect. International Affairs, 87(4), 825-850.
Boot, M. (2003). The new American way of war. Foreign Affairs, 41-58.
Fukuyama, F. (2017). State building: Governance and world order in the 21st century.
Profile Books.
Ikenberry, G. J. (1999). Institutions, strategic restraint, and the persistence of American
postwar order. International Security, 23(3), 43-78.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2005). Power and liberal order: America's postwar world order in
transition. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 5(2), 133-152.
Johnson, D. V. I., & Metz, S. (2001). Asymmetry and US military strategy: definition,
background, and strategic concepts. DIANE Publishing.
Lundestad, E. B., & Jakobsen, T. G. (2013). A Unipolar World: Systems and Wars in Three
Different Military Eras. Popular Social Science.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2017). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government.
In Foucault and Law (pp. 191-224). Routledge.
Noortmann, M., Reinisch, A., & Ryngaert, C. (Eds.). (2015). Non-state actors in
international law. Bloomsbury Publishing.

GLOBAL SECURITY 9
Paris, R. (2001). Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?. International security, 26(2),
87-102.
Reinalda, B. (2016). Non-State actors in the international system of states. In The Ashgate
Research Companion to Non-State Actors (pp. 15-30). Routledge.
Soltani, F., & Yusoff, M. A. (2012). Concept of Security in the Theoretical
Approaches. Research Journal of International Studies, 7.
Stokes, D. (2018). Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international
order. International Affairs, 94(1), 133-150.