This paper examines the evolving concepts of security and conflict within the international system. It begins by surveying competing definitions of security — from state-monopoly on violence to human security and intrastate security — arguing that the lack of consensus hampers effective global policy. The paper then contrasts Mary Kaldor's distinction between "old wars" and "new wars" with Paul Hirst's technologically deterministic view of modern conflict. Finally, it traces the foreign and security policy of the United States from post-World War II multilateralism through Cold War realism, the emergence of hegemonic maximal realism after the Soviet collapse, and the enduring influence of liberal values on American international conduct.
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: it presents two or more competing frameworks (e.g., Kaldor vs. Hirst on modern warfare; realism vs. liberalism in U.S. policy), outlines the strengths and limitations of each, and argues that reality is more nuanced than any single framework captures. This technique is central to political science and international relations writing at the undergraduate level.
The paper is organized into three broad sections. The first addresses competing definitions of security (state-centric, human, intrastate). The second contrasts Kaldor's new-wars thesis with Hirst's technological-power view. The third traces the evolution of U.S. foreign and security policy from post-WWII multilateralism through Cold War containment, post-Soviet hegemonic realism, and the persistent influence of domestic liberal values on international conduct.
Security, at its most basic, is personal. People want to be secure, whether on a group, regional, national, or global level. While the most important type of security to most people is individual security — the freedom from threat of harm from outside forces — individual security is not possible without security in the larger arenas. In order to obtain individual security for ourselves and others, we must also obtain group, regional, national, and global security. That much is clear. Yet how we go about obtaining these types of security depends in large part upon how we view security on a large scale. What exactly does it mean for a nation or for the world to be secure? Is it the same "freedom from threat" that defines individual security? Or is it something more complex? Does security on a global level change the definition of security? There is currently no clear consensus on this among researchers in the field of security politics, and without consensus, no real plan can be put into place to ensure global security for all.
One traditional definition of security, as it applies to the national and international arena, is that national security means one nation having a monopoly on the use of violence within a given set of borders. One advantage of this viewpoint is that any nation holding such a monopoly will certainly be secure within its own territories; no other nation can utilize violence in that nation's realm. The Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War was a good example of this type of security. However, a drawback is that this definition only ensures a nation's security from outside forces — and even that only for as long as no other nation becomes powerful enough to seize that monopoly. Furthermore, this definition does nothing to ensure individual security within the nation, since the government retains the option to use violence against its own citizens.
As national security can often be threatened by more powerful external forces, and even internal ones, some researchers are moving toward a different definition of security — one focusing on the security of human beings rather than on nations. This concept is often referred to as "human security." It defines security as the ability of human beings to access basic needs, such as clean air and water, food, shelter, freedom from violence, and freedom from economic exploitation. While this is a noble definition, it is too broad and ambiguous to serve as an effective national or international security policy.
With the changing nature of warfare — from the typical 18th- and 19th-century conflicts fought solely between nations, with clearly demarcated distinctions between soldiers and civilians, to today's internal conflicts that threaten national stability and offer no sanctuary for civilians — a new type of security definition is needed. The concept of "intrastate security" offers one possible way to look at modern security issues, though it involves national leaders brainstorming together to develop common ideas, the kind of group thinking about which Janis urges caution (Janis, 1982). Under this definition, nations working together to address issues that affect all people — such as environmental degradation, poverty, and religious and economic tensions — can find ways to increase internal stability everywhere, thereby stopping internal conflicts that can destroy one nation and spill over into others. This, in turn, would help ensure the security of all nations, provided those nations are able to plan together adequately for the common good.
Mary Kaldor draws a definitive distinction between "old wars" and "new wars." Old wars are the traditional type of conflict that nations have been fighting for centuries — disputes that occur strictly between states, with each side aiming to inflict the maximum amount of violence on the other. Individuals and institutions played little to no role in the origins of these conflicts; old wars arose from disputes between rulers, and if ordinary citizens became caught up in them, that was considered an acceptable consequence.
New wars, however, are an entirely different breed. Modern conflicts, those fought in recent decades, are a mixture of traditional warfare, human rights violations, and organized crime. They encompass a wide variety of actors, from heads of state to public institutions to private individuals. Everyone has the potential to participate in and leave their mark on modern wars. These conflicts are fought not because of disputes between rulers but because of the political goals of people, groups, and governments. The tactics employed can range from conventional military operations to terrorism to destabilization techniques designed to weaken a nation's infrastructure — economically, psychologically, or otherwise. Modern warfare is more covert and insidious than traditional warfare. There are no protocols of battle in new wars, no meaningful code of conduct. New wars are fought not on the battlefield but in the schools, churches, and homes of ordinary citizens.
New wars cannot be handled like old wars. Rather than being resolved by vast armies deploying the most sophisticated weapons to defeat one another, new wars must be fought primarily on an intellectual level. They require the creation of international strategies to correct the social conditions that give rise to conflict and to prevent recurrence. Humanitarian policies and global peacekeeping forces can and should be employed. Superior firepower will not be much help in fighting a war caused by the drug trade or by poverty; other, more creative and less brutal methods must be employed for any resolution to be successful.
In contrast, Paul Hirst views modern warfare much as he does traditional warfare — except with superior firepower. Indeed, much of Hirst's view of modern society can be understood through the lens of increasingly sophisticated weaponry. Great technological advances in weapons and the industries that produce them have united the already powerful nations, and these nations will use their sophisticated technology to intervene in the affairs of less advanced states — perhaps raising the quality of life there, perhaps absorbing those states into the larger ones. There is also the ever-present danger of a small nation or special interest group obtaining advanced weaponry to attack a major power, thereby incurring the wrath of other advanced nations (Hirst, 98). This results in a system of assured destruction for the lesser-equipped nations — unlike the mutually assured destruction commonly discussed during the Cold War, where both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed the power to destroy each other and therefore neither made any move to threaten the other.
Viewing modern wars through the lens of advancing weaponry, it does not appear that the fundamental reasons for war have changed much throughout human history. Wars are still fought over perceived threats, the desire for dominion, and as pre-emptive strikes against potential enemies. Nations, not people, remain the primary actors. The modern world is somewhat more complex than this, however. Despite the fact that human nature has changed very little since ancient times, the issues humanity faces have changed, and this demands a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the causes and proper handling of modern warfare than Hirst's framework provides.
The foreign and security policies of the United States have undergone considerable change since the end of World War II in 1945. The war's conclusion marked the beginning of the Cold War, the rise of communism as a global force, and the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as rival superpowers. Navigating such tumultuous and constantly shifting international conditions, U.S. foreign and security policy evolved frequently in response to external circumstances.
While officially taking a stand against communism after World War II, the United States nevertheless adopted a somewhat multilateral stance in agreeing to participate in the United Nations. The United Nations was intended to act as a global peacekeeper, in which member nations collectively monitored world affairs. Although some member nations held veto power and others did not, no single nation was formally superior to another within the organization. In the United Nations, the United States held equal standing alongside Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The United States participated in UN actions and made a show of being part of the international community while simultaneously maintaining its superpower status outside the organization's walls. In light of new global political conditions that emphasize international cooperation and governance rather than unilateral government (Baylis & Smith, 13), the United Nations still has an important role to play, and the United States has a role within it.
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.