|
| |
The text on this page attempts to outline a concept known as the security
dilemma, which is a fundamental problem of the international nation-state system resulting from an anarchic
structure:
"The most central characteristic of the international system is that it's "anarchic". The term anarchy is not used in this sense to mean the absence of regularity
(disorder and chaos) (...). It is also not taken to mean the absence of internationally binding
rules. These are very much present (...). Anarchy in its strictest sense means much
more: formal lack of rule. While there are differences between states in the international system in terms of power, which are even strengthened and maintained by effective mechanisms of the international system, there
is, in contrast to the domestic circumstances within states, no formal hierarchy
and no monopoly of one state to use force. This means that states - unlike citizens within the state - are responsible for their own protection and is also the reason why the international system is often referred to as a self-help system. The most that states can do within this system is to try to coordinate their defense needs with other states and to enter into alliances for defense-policy
reasons. Yet for all this, cooperation agreements are still targeted at other
states. The two largest alliances, which dominated post-Second World War security
policy, were the North Atlantic Treaty in the form of NATO which was formed in 1949 and which represented the West, and the Warsaw
Pact, which represented the interests of the East from between 1955 and 1991.
Take
anarchy as a systematic characteristic and state dependence on self-help,
combine this with the fact that there are hardly any military means that perform a purely defensive
role, and what you have is a central dilemma for international politics. And it was the American political scientist John H. Herz (1950) who introduced a the term security dilemma to explain this
situation. The security dilemma basically states that striving to attain security against attack by military
means, even when these means are intended to fulfill a defensive role, will be seen by B as a
threat, whose response will be to arm, which, in turn, only serves in strengthening A's feeling of
vulnerability. Not only does this lead to an endless "arms race", it also does nothing to improve
feelings of security. Indeed, the perception of an arms race can even achieve the reverse,
leaving people and states feeling even more insecure. Or to put it in a
nutshell: Under anarchic conditions the striving of one side to attain security can create insecurity. To this end,
then, the security dilemma provides a systematic explanation for the security problem in international
politics."
[Taken from: Martin List u.a.: Internationale Politik. Probleme und Grundbegriffe, Opladen 1995, p. 91-93]
[Back to top of page]
|
