Abstract
Security is at the very heart of contemporary political life. In the developed states of the North, most individuals’ security is provided by the state — from protection from the internal and external threat of violence to the provision of basic needs — and is therefore contingent on political relationships, mainly found in the link between citizen and state. The potential impacts of globalization, while not necessarily threatening the life of the state itself, are bound to have an influence on this vital area. However, the state itself is a historically constituted entity that has undergone changes throughout its history. The importance of this recognition is that the development of a theory of the globalization of security cannot be properly analysed without some idea of the interaction between state change and security in international relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
However, see Barry Buzan, ‘“Change and Insecurity” Reconsidered’, in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff (eds), Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass, 2000).
For a good overview, see Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff (eds), Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass, 2000).
Michael Mann, ‘Nation-States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, Not Dying’, Daedalus Vol. 122 (Summer 1993): 115–40.
John Herz, ‘The Rise and Demise of Territorial State’, World Politics Vol. 9, No. 4 (1957): 473–93.
See especially Ken Booth,‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies Vol. 17, No. 4 (1991): 313–27;
Keith Krause and Michael Williams, ‘From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies’, in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London: UCL Press, 1997), 33–59;
Steve Smith ‘Mature Anarchy, Strong States, and Security’, Arms Control Vol. 12 (1991): 325–39;
and Richard Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999).
Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), ch. 3.
cf. Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,).
Randall Collins, Four Sociological Traditions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
See John M. Hobson and Leonard Seabrooke, ‘Reimagining Weber: Constructing International Society and the Social Balance of Power’, European Journal of International Relations Vol. 7, No. 2 (2001): 239–74.
See Michael Mann, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’, in States, War and Capitalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). Also see Clark, Globalization and International Relations Theory.
Max Weber, Economy and Society, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 904–5.
See for example, Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995);
Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);
and Daniel Philpott, ‘Westphalia, Authority and International Society’, Political Studies Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999): 566–89.
See Bruce W. Jentleson, ‘Preventative Statecraft: A Realist Strategy for the Post-Cold War Era’, in Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall (eds), Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict (Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 2001);
and Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
See, for example, Mlada Bukovansky, ‘The Altered State and the State of Nature — the French Revolution and International Politics’, Review of International Studies Vol. 25, No. 2 (1999): 197–216. Teschke’s analysis of changes in social-property relations come to similar conclusions about changes in international relations, but derived from the advent of capitalist social property relations in Britain in the eighteenth century (i.e. the development of the public-private split helped provide the foundations of geopolitics and the abstract national interest, divorced as it was from the state as the ruler’s personal property as found in Absolutism). See Teschke, ‘Westphalian System’; cf. Anderson, Lineages.
Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–91 (London: Abacus, 1995), 44–9;
Alan S. Milward, War, Economy and Society 1939–1945 (London: Allen Lane, 1977), ch. 2; Roseman, ‘War and the People’, 283–5.
Brian Bond, War and Society in Europe, 1870–1970, 2nd ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1998), 174.
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century (London: Penguin Books, 1999), 304.
T. H. Marshall, ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in Sociology at the Crossroads (London: Heinemann, 1963), 99.
See, for example, Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965);
Robert Jervis, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989);
and Michael Mandelbaum, The Nuclear Revolution: International Politics Before and After Hiroshima (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
John Gerard Ruggie, ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, International Organization Vol. 36 (1982): 195–231. Clark’s discussion of the‘broker state’ is also in line with this account. See Clark, Globalization and International Relations Theory, 62–5. Also see Robert Latham, The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security, and the Making of Postwar International Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001);
See Fred Halliday, ‘The Cold War as Inter-Systemic Conflict: Initial Theses’, in Mike Bowker and Robin Brown (eds), From Cold War to Collapse: Theory and World Politics in the 1980s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
For accounts of these debates see Robert Jervis, ‘Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate’, International Security Vol. 42, No. 1 (Summer 1999): 42–63;
Robert Keohane, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly Vol. 32 (December 1989): 379–96;
and James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders’, International Organization Vol. 52, No. 4 (1998): 943–69. The overall view taken here is more in line with the ‘historical institutionalism’, exemplified by the work of Ikenberry. See Ikenberry, After Victory, ch. 1.
Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, FDR and the Creation of the United Nations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997).
and Paul W. Schroeder, ‘Alliances, 1815–1945: Weapons of Power and Tools of Management’, in Klaus Knorr (ed.), Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1975), 227–63.
Paul Cornish, ‘NATO: The Practices and Politics of Transformation’, International Affairs Vol. 80, No. 1 (2004): 63–74;
Astri Suhrke, ‘A Contradictory Mission?: NATO from Stabilization to Combat in Afghanistan’, International Peacekeeping Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008): 214–36.
G. John Ikenberry, ‘Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order’, International Security Vol. 23, No. 3 (1998): 54–7.
John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 39;
Charles S. Maier, ‘Alliance and Autonomy: European Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in the Truman Years’, in Michael J. Lacey (ed.), The Truman Presidency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 273–98, 273–6;
and Bruce Cumings, ‘Still the American Century’, Review of International Studies Vol. 25, special issue (1999): 271–99.
See, particularly, John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941–1947 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972). For commentary on the radical tradition in Cold War analysis, see Michael Cox, ‘Radical Theory and the Cold War’, in Mike Bowker and Brown, From Cold War to Collapse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Fred Halliday, The Making of the Second Cold War, 2nd ed. (London: Verso, 1986), 81.
Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization’, European Journal of International Relations Vol. 5, No. 1 (1999): 414.
Adam Watson, The Limits of Independence: Relations Between States in the Modern World (London: Routledge, 1997), 81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Bryan Mabee
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mabee, B. (2009). The ‘Security State’ and the Evolution of Security Provision. In: The Globalization of Security. New Security Challenges Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234123_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234123_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-30888-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-23412-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)