Contemporary Security and Strategy

  • Craig A. Snyder


The study of security has been transformed by the ending of the Cold War. This has forced a major rethink about the basic assumptions underlying security studies. At stake are some of the key concepts in security studies in particular and international relations in general: security, power, conflict and the nation state. For 50 years academic theorising about international conflict was dominated by the Cold War and bipolarity. Academics and policy makers alike sought to explain and predict conflict within the international ‘system’. However they were not necessarily interested in conflict per se, but focused upon conflict between the superpowers. This was partly a result of the fact that most of these Cold War security theorists saw the world in terms of the realist paradigm. Realists argue that the international system is anarchic in nature and that states act to maximise their power or security. As such the actions of the strongest states are of most concern to students of the international system.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War’, International Security, vol. 15, no. 1 (1990), pp. 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Brzezinski, ‘The Consequences of the End of the Cold War in International Security’, in New Dimensions in International Security, Part I, Adelphi Papers 265 (London, 1991–2), p. 16.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (London, 1989).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.A. Levy, ‘Is the Environment a National Security Issue?’, International Security, vol. 20, no. 2 (1995), pp. 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B, Roberts, ‘Human Rights and International Security’, Washington Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 1 (1990), pp. 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Weiner, ‘Security, Stability and International Migration’, International Security, vol. 17, no. 3 (1992–3), pp. 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Krause and M. C. Williams, ‘Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods’, Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 40 (1996), p. 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Buzan, An Introduction to Strategic Studies: Military Technology and international relations (London, 1987), p. 4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. K. Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, World Politics, vol. 50, no. 1 (1997), p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    The key American Cold War Strategists include Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry Kissinger, William Kauffman, Herman Kahn and Thomas Schelling. See J. Garnett, ‘Strategic Studies and its Assumptions’, in J. Bayliss, K. Booth, J. Garnett and P. Williams, Contemporary Strategy: Vol I Theories and Concepts (London, 1987), p. 7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buzan, An Introduction to Strategic Studies, op. cit., p. 3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liddell-Hart, Bull, Gray and Beaufré are all quoted in Buzan, An Introduction to Strategic Studies, op. cit., pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garnett, ‘Strategic Studies’, op. cit., pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, op. cit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Baldwin, ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’, World Politics, vol. 48, no. 1 (1995), pp. 119–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    E. A. Kolodziej, ‘Whither Security Studies After the Cold War?’, in K. P. Bajpai and S. P. Cohen (eds), South Asia After the Cold War: International Perspectives (Boulder, CO, 1993), p. 16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., p. 123; Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, op. cit., p. 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., p. 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, op. cit., p. 13, especially note 11. Examples of the case-study research include D. Pike, Viet Cong (Cambridge, MA, 1966); J. Race, War Comes to Long An (Berkley, CA, 1972); D. Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era (New York, 1977); L. Cable, Conflict of Myths: The Development of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War (New York, 1986); D.M. Shafer, Deadly Paradigms (Princeton, NJ, 1988); T. Lomperis, From People’s War to People’s Rule (Chapel Hill, NC, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    These scholars include R. Betts, Surprise Attack (Washington, DC, 1982); J. Bouchard, Command in Crisis (New York, 1991); E. Cohen, Citizens and Soldiers (Ithaca, NY, 1985); J. Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York, 1976); E. Luttwak, Strategy (Cambridge, MA, 1987); J Mearsheimer, Conventional Deterrence (Ithaca, NY, 1983); B. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine (Ithaca, NY, 1984); S. Rosen, Winning the Next War (Ithaca, NY, 1991); M. van Crevald, Supplying War (New York, 1977); and, M. van Crevald, Command in War (Cambridge, MA, 1985).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., p. 124. See Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, op. cit., p. 20, especially note 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., pp. 124–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., p. 118; and L. Freedman, ‘International Security: Changing Targets’, Foreign Policy, no. 110 (1998), pp. 52–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., pp. 126–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baldwin, ‘Security Studies’, op. cit., pp. 128–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid., pp. 130–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deakin University 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig A. Snyder

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations