Abstract
In the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) and in the United Nations Charter (1945), ‘international peace and security’ have been used together as the key purposes of both international organizations to be achieved by global (chap. VI and VII of UN Charter) and regional systems (chap. VIII of UN Charter) of collective security, as well as by collective and national self defence (Art. 51 UN Charter; chap. 4 by Wæver; chap. 35 by Bothe).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See:Lynn-Jones/ Miller 1995; Ullman 1983, Homer-Dixon 1991, 1994; Lowi 1993, 1995, 1998; Lowi/Shaw 2000; Gleick 1990, 1991,1993,1993a, 1994, 1998, 2000.
See e.g. for the German debate: Albrecht 1972, 1972a, 1974, 1975a, 1976a, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984; Brauch 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1986a, 1987 1987a, 1989, 1989a; Jahn 1991; Jahn/Lemaître/Wsever 1987: Senghaas 1969, 1970, 1972a.
Gleditsch 1996, 1997, 1997a, 1998, 1998a, 2001, 2001a, 2001b, 2001C, 2002, 2003; Brock 1991,1992,1997,1999.
See for lists of peace research centres around the globe: <http://www.pnub.org/afb_pri/pri.htm>; for surveys of peace research history and research results, e.g. in Germany, see: Krippendorff (1968); Eberwein/Reichel (1976); Brauch (1979); Graf/Horn/Macho (1989); Hauswedell (1997); Wasmuth (1998); Eckern/Herwartz-Emden /Schultze (2004); Koppe (2006).
See:Albrecht 1980, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1989a; Albrecht /Krasemann 1989; Albrecht/Nikutta 1989; Brauch 1982,1984,1986,1986a, 1987 1989.
For a critique of the IISS’s: Dossier on the Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction of 2002, see: Ekeus 2004.
See:The Applied Research Centre in Human Security (ARCHS)was established in 2006at the University of Coventry; see at: <http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/d/176>.
Buzan (1983: 157–158) distinguished between a defence and a power-security dilemma. According to his defini-tion the defence dilemma arises from “the nature and dynamics of military means as they are developed and deployed by states.” Buzan (1983: 159) further argued that the most serious defence dilemma occurs “when military measures actually contradict security, in that military preparations in the name of defence themselves pose serious threats to the state.” In contrast the powersecurity dilemma (Buzan 1983:173-213) deals with political problems, which he explained for revisionism and the arms dynamic. For Buzan (1983: 207) the powersecurity dilemma is sustained “not only by the tensions between status quo and revisionist interests, but also by the massive momentum of the arms dynamic”. These two dilemmas refer to the dichotomy of the two rival interpretations of the armaments dynamics: an external (threat based) vs. an internal (autodynamic) causation. For a review of the debate on the security dilemma (Herz 1950) see chap. 40 by Brauch.
Developing his previous categorization of 2000 further, Smith (2005) reviewed six schools that were involved in the discussion of broadening and deepening the definition of the concept of security: a) the traditional literature, b) the Copenhagen school, c) constructivist security studies, d) critical security studies, e) feminist, and f) postructuralist security studies, as well as on g) human security by looking at their methods and objects of analysis and not on their respective concepts of security on which these are based.
See: Lynn-Jones/ Miller 1995; Lipschutz 1995; Tickner 1995; Baldwin 1997; Krause/Williams 1997; Bilgin/ Booth/Wyn Jones 1998; Buzan/Wæver/de Wilde 1998. 19 See: Gaddis 1992/1993; Lebow 1994; Wohlforth 1995, 2003; Waltz 1995; Mearsheimer 1995.
See: TFF: Meeting Point: Johan Gaining: “Peace Studies: A Ten Point Primer”, at: <http://www.transnatio-nal.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2005/Gal tung_PR_Primer. html>.
This view was shared by Moravcsik (2006: 3) of Princeton University who wrote: “For Europe, in the realist and neo-conservative understandings, the defining moment of the contemporary era is not 9/11 but 11/9: the collapse of the Soviet empire, symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. Without major direct threats to their security, Europeans have felt free to disarm, cultivate their unique postmodern polity, and criticize the United States. Thus, many argue, Europeans and Americans disagree about not only power and threats, but also means.”
The CASE Manifesto (2006) triggered three replies by Walker (2007), Behnke (2007) and Salter (2007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Albrecht, U., Brauch, H.G. (2008). Security in Peace Research and Security Studies. In: Brauch, H.G., et al. Globalization and Environmental Challenges. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75977-5_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75977-5_38
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75976-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75977-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)