In light of the War on Terror, conceptions of security are evolving. Focus on national security is, and has been, waning as the sovereign state begins to lose some of its pre-eminence. Many security analysts claim the process of globalisation and it’s associated ‘risks’ are largely outside the control of nation states and that only the development of a global community can deal with this adequately.
The report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for US National Security,” attempts to predict future climate change possibilities, but is flawed.
Despite the fact that people always talk about the need for peace, the world is instead filled with fear and constant security threats. Since the First World War many theorists and political scientists have tried to come up with a solution on how to create a peaceful international environment but with no real achievement. This leads to a natural conclusion that there are certain obstacles that prevent cooperation between states
The intentions of biological weapons are to cause damage to the social and economic order of society. Infectious disease also causes damage to this order and thus constitutes a security threat.
In this essay I will investigate how racism functions as a metric for the biopolitics of security. I will begin by analysing the development of the counter-historical discourse, from its opposition to traditional sovereignty, through to the development of the ‘warring nations’ thesis, and it’s eventual reformulation as a discourse of the state.
During the Cold War the fear of nuclear disaster was a clear danger. The climax of the Cold War that brought the world the closest to nuclear fallout was during the Cuban missile crisis. The Non Proliferation Treaty was signed to keep the number of nuclear states to a minimum in order to try and limit the threats posed by possible nuclear nations.
The label ‘failed state’ is now commonly employed to describe a host of troubled states, seemingly unable to achieve the material requirements crucial to state legitimacy.
Humanitarian intervention is an issue which receives a great deal of attention from academics, politicians and the media. Throughout the 1990s, human rights abuses in Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo all raised the question of whether humanitarian intervention could be morally justified. This left Tony Blair to conclude in 1999 that ‘the most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get involved in other people’s conflicts’. In the twenty-first century the controversies have continued, and the international community has been deeply divided over whether to intervene both in Iraq and Darfur.
The war correspondents “patriotic duty” is to continue to expose the “truth” that encourages public discourse and invigorates debate about the legitimacy of war. If the first casualty of war is truth, it is the role of the war correspondent to find it and bring it back to life.
The idea of a security-development nexus, that a country’s well-being depends on its level of development, is too simplistic to explain the dynamics of conflict.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.