Security by any other name: negative security, positive security, and a multi-actor security approach

Abstract

This article examines the challenges and contradictions between some of the leading conceptions of security within the field of International Relations (IR), from those stating that the concept can only be employed by the state with regard to immediate, existential threats, to those that see security as the foundation of social life or as a human good. This article continues a discussion that has taken place in the Review of International Studies regarding the development of positive security, examining the potential use of the terms ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ security to bring clarity to these diverging security perspectives and to argue for a multi-actor security approach. It is argued that positive security perspectives, which rely on non-violent measures, ensure an emphasis upon context, values, and security practices that build trust, and by use of a multi-actor security model, shows the dynamics between state and non-state actors in the creation of security.

Will Informal Institutions Replace Formal Institutions? The Primacy of Church and “Uma Lisan” in Fostering Community Security in Timor Leste

“…Philosophically, security can be seen as an accumulation of power or emancipation. Security as an accumulation of power is in line with the idea that security is a condition free from fear and threats of violence 19 . This epistemology views that power (especially military power) becomes an essential factor for achieving security and the more powerful the actor has, the greater the security that will be gained.…”

The Future(s) of Security Studies

“…Hence, security can be seen as both protection from harms, threats and risks -'security from' -reflecting its negative shield-like quality, and it may foster the conditions that empower people to engage in certain pursuits -'security to' -reflecting its enabling, foundational quality (Hoogensen et al 2009: 3). Yet, there are evident dangers implicit in the quest for such 'positive' notions of security (Schuilenburg et al 2014), including the construction of unhelpful, determinisitic and overly-static binaries of negative/positive, bad/good, constraining/enabling, violent/non-violent, state/individual, securitising/emancipatory, and so forth (Hoogensen 2012). Whilst such approaches successfully move analyses away from universalistic and linear interpretations of (security, in the end they may be too polarising to reflect or capture adequately the multiple logics, experiences, impacts and ethics of security practices.…”

Defining security in a changing Arctic: helping to prevent an Arctic security dilemma

“…Considering the anarchic nature of the international system, where the lack of a world government means that states are constantly uncertain about their relations and concerned with their safety, negative/hard security is a state-centric concept related to the identification of threats and the use of the military to address issues of immediate and existential danger (Hoogensen Gjørv 2012: 839–840). Under this paradigm, states will identify a strategy to pursue their goals (whether based on conflict or cooperation), and, in cases where the increase of state power may be perceived as offensive, may adopt foreign policy strategies that will cause anxiety in their counterparts (Herz 1950).…”