International Security Explained

Introduction

International security broadly concerns serious threats to the survival, autonomy, safety, or essential interests of states and other valued referents. Its boundaries remain contested because scholars disagree over who or what should be protected, which dangers qualify as security threats, and which forms of political action are appropriate in response. Much of the field can be organized around three recurring questions: security for whom, security against what, and security by what means (Buzan and Hansen, 2009; Krause and Williams, 2018).

The modern study of security became especially prominent after the Second World War, when nuclear weapons, superpower rivalry, alliance politics, and the possibility of major interstate war gave strategic studies a central position within international relations. Research focused heavily on military capability, deterrence, escalation, arms control, and the conditions under which states might prevent or survive armed conflict (Walt, 1991). These concerns remain fundamental because military power, territorial defense, nuclear strategy, and interstate competition continue to shape international security.

Challenges to a predominantly military and state-centered conception did not begin with the end of the Cold War. Earlier scholarship had already questioned whether threats to states captured the full range of insecurity experienced by societies and individuals. The post-Cold War period nevertheless gave greater prominence to debates over the broadening and deepening of security. Broadening brought economic, environmental, societal, health, and technological concerns more clearly into security analysis, while deepening directed greater attention toward individuals and social groups as possible referent objects (Buzan and Hansen, 2009; Krause and Williams, 2018).

These debates also gave greater prominence to human security and to what is commonly described as non-traditional security. Human security shifted analytical attention toward severe threats affecting individuals and communities, while non-traditional security drew attention to dangers that do not fit comfortably within conventional models of interstate military aggression. Neither development eliminated traditional security. Instead, security studies became more internally diverse, with realist, liberal, constructivist, critical, feminist, and securitization approaches offering different explanations of how threats arise, how they are perceived, and whose security receives political priority (UNDP, 1994; Gheciu and Wohlforth, 2018).

A rigorous account of international security must preserve this breadth without treating every serious political or social problem as a security issue. Traditional security, human security, non-traditional security, and collective security approach insecurity from different analytical levels: they differ in the referents they prioritize, the dangers they emphasize, or the institutional means through which security is pursued. Clear analysis requires identifying what is threatened, how the harm could occur, who possesses the capacity or authority to respond, and whether the chosen response is likely to reduce insecurity rather than intensify it.

1. Defining International Security

International security has no single definition accepted across security studies. In its traditional form, it concerns threats to state survival, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Broader approaches extend the object of security to societies, communities, individuals, and systems whose disruption can produce severe political or human consequences (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998; Buzan and Hansen, 2009).

The concept still requires boundaries. Poverty, political disagreement, environmental degradation, disease, military coercion, and technological disruption can all cause harm, but they do not operate through the same mechanisms or necessarily warrant the same security response. What counts as a security problem depends partly on the object being protected, the severity and character of the anticipated harm, and the political context in which the danger arises (Krause and Williams, 2018).

National and international security are best distinguished by analytical level and context rather than by a strict domestic-international divide. National security usually begins with the protection of a particular state and political community. International security gives greater attention to threats, interactions, and institutional arrangements that cross borders or affect relations among states and other international actors. Terrorism, civil conflict, cyber operations, economic pressure, and political instability can acquire both dimensions.

1.1 Security for Whom?

The entity whose security is being considered is commonly described as the referent object. Many traditional approaches place the state at the center because sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and survival are fundamental concerns of interstate politics. Realist theories provide a specific explanation for this priority: without a superior authority capable of guaranteeing state survival, governments must retain the capacity to protect themselves against coercion and attack.

Other approaches use different referents. Societal security scholarship considers threats to collective identities and communities, while human security directs attention toward individuals exposed to violence, severe deprivation, displacement, and related forms of insecurity. Security can also be assessed in relation to institutions, infrastructure, or systems whose failure could endanger political communities or human welfare (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998).

The choice of referent changes the analysis. Greater security for the state does not automatically produce greater security for every person or community within it, just as policies designed to protect individuals may impose costs or constraints on state institutions. Security studies must consequently specify whose security is at stake before assessing the character of a threat or the effectiveness of a response.

1.2 Threats, Risks, and Vulnerabilities

For analytical purposes, it is useful to distinguish threats, risks, and vulnerabilities, while recognizing that academic and policy traditions do not use these terms uniformly. A threat refers here to a potential source of serious harm. Where an actor possesses both the capability and intention to cause damage, as in armed aggression or a deliberate cyber operation, the source of the threat may be comparatively identifiable.

Risk places greater emphasis on uncertainty, likelihood, and potential consequences. Pandemic disease, infrastructure failure, severe environmental disruption, and technological accidents can create major security consequences without an adversary intentionally producing them. Analysis then concerns how probable the event is, how damaging it could become, and how effectively institutions can absorb or manage its effects.

Vulnerability concerns susceptibility to harm. Dependence on fragile infrastructure, limited institutional capacity, concentrated energy supplies, or poorly protected digital systems can increase exposure even before a specific threat materializes. Separating these concepts prevents military attack, cyber intrusion, pandemic disease, and climate-related disruption from being treated as analytically identical simply because each can generate serious insecurity.

2. How Security Studies Developed

Questions of war, political survival, military power, and political order long predate security studies as an academic field. Modern security studies developed more directly through strategic studies and gained particular prominence after the Second World War. Nuclear weapons, technological change, superpower rivalry, and the possibility of catastrophic interstate conflict created strong demand for systematic analysis of military strategy and political competition (Buzan and Hansen, 2009).

Cold War scholarship gave sustained attention to deterrence, nuclear strategy, arms control, military capability, alliances, escalation, and the causes and prevention of war. Walt famously described security studies as concerned with “the threat, use, and control of military force,” a formulation that captured the military orientation of much mainstream research while debates over the boundaries of the field were already underway (Walt, 1991, p. 212).

That history was never completely uniform. Peace research, disarmament scholarship, conflict studies, and other traditions developed alongside mainstream strategic studies and challenged some of its assumptions. Broader conceptions of security did not suddenly appear with the end of the Cold War; the intellectual foundations for challenging a narrowly military and state-centered agenda had been developing for decades (Buzan and Hansen, 2009).

2.1 From Strategic Studies to a Broader Agenda

Debate over the proper boundaries of security became more prominent during the later Cold War and intensified after bipolarity ended. Civil conflict, terrorism, environmental degradation, economic vulnerability, migration, disease, and technological dependence posed questions that could not always be analyzed adequately through models designed primarily for interstate military competition.

This shift is commonly described as the broadening and deepening of security. Broadening expanded the range of potential security concerns beyond military threats to include political, economic, societal, environmental, health, and technological problems. Deepening questioned whether the state should always remain the principal referent and directed greater attention toward individuals, communities, and other social actors (Buzan and Hansen, 2009; Krause and Williams, 2018).

The broader agenda did not displace strategic studies. War, nuclear deterrence, military innovation, territorial disputes, alliances, arms control, and great-power competition remain central to international security. Contemporary security studies instead contain these traditional problems alongside research on environmental, societal, technological, health, and transnational forms of insecurity.

3. Competing Approaches to Security

Security studies does not offer a single explanation for why insecurity arises or how it should be managed. Theoretical approaches differ over the actors that deserve analytical priority, the importance of military and economic capabilities, the effects of international institutions, and the influence of norms, identities, domestic politics, and political authority.

These disagreements affect interpretations of the same events. Military expansion may be understood as balancing, aggression, deterrence, or a source of mutual insecurity depending on the assumptions brought to the analysis. An alliance can be treated as a response to material threats, a framework for institutionalized cooperation, or a political community sustained partly through shared identities and expectations.

Theory is most useful here when it clarifies competing causal explanations rather than when schools are treated as isolated intellectual categories. The central questions remain consistent: whose security receives priority, what generates insecurity, how political actors interpret threats, and which mechanisms might reduce the danger.

3.1 Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist Views

Realist approaches generally emphasize power, competition, uncertainty, and state security, although they disagree over the sources and consequences of these pressures. Structural realism assigns particular importance to international anarchy and the distribution of material capabilities, arguing that states must operate in a system where no central authority guarantees their survival (Waltz, 1979).

Liberal approaches place greater emphasis on the conditions that permit cooperation. International institutions can provide information, establish expectations, reduce some forms of uncertainty, and facilitate repeated interaction, while economic interdependence and domestic political arrangements may alter state incentives. Liberal analysis does not require the disappearance of power politics; it argues that systemic constraints alone cannot explain the full range of international outcomes (Keohane, 1984).

Constructivism examines how identities, norms, expectations, and historically formed relationships influence security interests and perceptions. Material capabilities remain relevant, but their political meaning is not fixed independently of social relations. States may react very differently to comparable capabilities possessed by an ally and an adversary because the relationship itself shapes expectations about intention and danger (Wendt, 1992).

3.2 Critical and Feminist Security Studies

Critical security studies encompasses several intellectual traditions rather than a single theory. Some approaches emphasize emancipation and forms of insecurity experienced below the level of the state; others examine how discourse, expertise, institutions, and political authority contribute to defining particular conditions as security problems. Their common point of departure is skepticism toward treating conventional security categories as politically neutral or analytically self-evident (Hendershot and Mutimer, 2018).

Such approaches do not require the conclusion that threats are imaginary. They instead direct attention to the choices involved in identifying a referent, defining a danger, and authorizing particular responses. A security policy may protect one interest while imposing costs on another, making the political consequences of security practices part of the analysis rather than an issue external to it.

Feminist security studies adds a distinct critique by examining how gender influences both experiences of insecurity and the production of security knowledge. Research has addressed the gendered effects of war, militarization, displacement, and political violence while questioning analytical traditions that privilege states, armed institutions, and military threats at the expense of less visible forms of insecurity (Sjoberg, 2009). Its contribution is not merely to add gender to an existing agenda, but to reconsider how the boundaries and subjects of security are defined.

4. Traditional Security and Strategic Competition

Traditional security places the state at the center of analysis and concentrates on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and survival. Military power remains central because armed force can directly threaten territorial control, governmental authority, and physical security. Defense policy, nuclear weapons, strategic geography, military technology, and the distribution of capabilities consequently remain established concerns within international security (Krause and Williams, 2018).

The traditional agenda extends well beyond fighting wars. States maintain armed forces to deter attack, reassure allies, signal commitments, strengthen bargaining positions, and preserve strategic freedom of action. Military deployments and weapons programs may influence political calculations even when force is never used, making expectations about capability and resolve part of security competition.

Great-power relations give these dynamics wider consequences because shifts in military, economic, and technological capabilities can alter regional balances and the calculations of other states. Traditional security analysis accordingly examines force posture, strategic access, alliances, arms competition, nuclear stability, and changes in relative power alongside actual armed conflict (Waltz, 1979; Quinn, 2018).

4.1 Security Dilemmas, Deterrence, and Alliances

The security dilemma arises when measures taken by one state to increase its own security reduce the perceived security of another, encouraging countermeasures that may leave both worse off. The concept is most applicable where competition develops despite the absence of initially malign or expansionist intentions. It should be distinguished from situations in which one party deliberately seeks territorial expansion, domination, or revision of the existing order (Jervis, 1978; Tang, 2009).

Deterrence seeks to prevent an adversary from undertaking an unwanted action by influencing its expectations about the likely costs, risks, or chances of success. Effective deterrence depends on relevant capabilities, credible commitment, and communication that the intended recipient can interpret. Compellence addresses a different problem: it seeks to induce another actor to begin, stop, or reverse an action rather than merely refrain from acting (Schelling, 1966).

Alliances can strengthen deterrence by pooling capabilities and extending commitments, while balancing strategies are intended to counter concentrations of power or prevent strategic predominance. Alliance politics also creates tensions between fears of abandonment and entrapment, particularly when partners differ over threats or acceptable risks (Snyder, 1984). Arms control and confidence-building measures can mitigate some of these pressures by constraining capabilities, increasing transparency, or reducing opportunities for miscalculation without eliminating the political rivalry itself.

5. Collective Security and International Order

Collective security approaches international peace differently from national self-help. Its central premise is that certain acts of aggression or threats to peace should become concerns of a wider international community rather than remain disputes to be managed solely by the states directly involved. The expectation of organized opposition is intended to raise the political and strategic costs of aggression (Kupchan and Kupchan, 1995).

This differs from collective defense, in which a defined group of states undertakes mutual commitments against external threats. Collective security has a wider institutional purpose: maintaining an international order in which serious threats to peace can trigger a response through institutions representing a broader membership. Balance-of-power politics relies instead on states and coalitions countering concentrations of power through their own strategic behavior.

The League of Nations institutionalized collective-security principles after the First World War, but its effectiveness remained heavily dependent on member-state cooperation. The United Nations created a more centralized Charter framework in 1945, combining rules governing the use of force with a Security Council entrusted with primary responsibility for international peace and security. Collective security nevertheless coexists with self-defense, alliances, and continuing competition among states (United Nations, 1945).

5.1 The United Nations and Collective Security

Article 24 of the UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Under Article 39, the Council may determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Chapter VII then permits measures not involving armed force under Article 41 and, where the Charter requirements are met, military action under Article 42 (United Nations, 1945, arts 24, 39–42).

Peacekeeping developed through institutional practice rather than as an expressly named Charter mechanism. Traditional UN peacekeeping has generally rested on consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate. Some later operations have received broader mandates, including authority under Chapter VII, but peacekeeping should not be equated automatically with coercive enforcement (United Nations, 2008).

Political structure places significant limits on collective action. Under Article 27, a negative vote by one of the five permanent members can prevent adoption of a non-procedural Security Council resolution where the veto applies. Major-power disagreement consequently has particular institutional significance when sanctions, force, or other coercive measures are proposed (United Nations, 1945, art. 27).

Collective security is also affected by divergent threat perceptions, strategic interests, unequal capabilities, and differences in states' willingness to bear political or material costs. These constraints do not render the system irrelevant. They show that international institutions operate within a distribution of power and political interests rather than independently of them.

6. Non-Traditional and Human Security

The expansion of security studies brought greater attention to forms of insecurity that do not fit the conventional model of interstate military attack. Non-traditional security is useful as a broad category, but it does not identify a single type of threat. Terrorism, organized crime, cyber disruption, pandemics, environmental pressures, and resource insecurity involve different actors, causal mechanisms, and forms of vulnerability (Buzan and Hansen, 2009; Krause and Williams, 2018).

Many such problems are intensified by cross-border interdependence. Digital networks, energy systems, transportation routes, financial infrastructure, food supply chains, and public-health systems create benefits while also transmitting disruption across jurisdictions. Military capacity alone cannot manage many of these risks, even when armed forces can provide logistics, emergency support, or specialized capabilities during crises.

Traditional and non-traditional security also overlap. Cyber operations may accompany conventional warfare, economic dependencies can be exploited for strategic coercion, and organized criminal networks may interact with armed conflicts. Climate-related pressures can aggravate existing vulnerabilities under particular political and social conditions without functioning as a simple or universal cause of conflict. Analytical precision requires identifying these mechanisms rather than treating diverse sources of insecurity as interchangeable.

6.1 Transnational and Systemic Security Risks

Terrorism, transnational organized crime, and deliberate cyber operations involve purposeful actors whose activities can cross jurisdictions and exploit differences in state capacity. Cybersecurity adds problems of attribution, technological dependence, private ownership, and jurisdiction because important targets and networks may lie outside direct government control. These characteristics often require cooperation among security agencies, regulators, private operators, and international partners.

Pandemics, infrastructure failures, and many environmental risks have a different causal structure because severe harm may occur without a hostile actor intending it. Their security consequences depend on exposure, institutional preparedness, resilience, and the ability to limit cascading effects. Distinguishing adversarial threats from systemic risks helps determine whether deterrence, regulation, emergency planning, international cooperation, or another instrument is appropriate.

Economic coercion can sit across the traditional/non-traditional divide. States may exploit trade, finance, technology, energy dependence, or strategically important supply chains for coercive purposes, while the effectiveness of such policies often derives from the structure of international economic networks (Farrell and Newman, 2019). Security governance in these areas consequently extends beyond armed forces to economic agencies, international organizations, scientific institutions, law-enforcement bodies, regulators, and private firms.

6.2 Human Security

Human security shifts attention toward severe threats affecting people rather than treating territorial state security as a sufficient measure of protection. The concept gained major institutional prominence with the 1994 UNDP Human Development Report, which identified economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political dimensions of human security. This broad approach encompassed both persistent deprivation and sudden disruptions capable of threatening human life and well-being (UNDP, 1994).

Its breadth also generated criticism. If poverty, disease, environmental degradation, repression, economic hardship, and armed violence all qualify without clear thresholds, human security can become difficult to distinguish from development and general welfare policy. Paris (2001) argued that excessive breadth weakened its analytical usefulness, helping to generate a continuing debate between broad and narrower conceptions of the term.

The concept subsequently received a more defined institutional formulation. In 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted a common understanding of human security centered on people facing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to survival, livelihood, and dignity. The resolution emphasized context-sensitive and prevention-oriented responses combining protection with empowerment, while making clear that human security does not replace state security or authorize additional coercive intervention (United Nations General Assembly, 2012).

Human security also remains distinct from human rights and development. International human rights law establishes rights and corresponding legal obligations, alongside a wider institutional practice that also includes non-binding standards. Development addresses economic, social, institutional, and human advancement across a broader policy field. Human security instead organizes attention around severe threats affecting people. The three agendas overlap, but treating them as synonyms would obscure their different legal, analytical, and policy functions.

7. Securitization and Security Governance

Securitization theory examines how an issue comes to be treated as a security problem rather than assuming that the boundaries of security are fixed in advance. In the Copenhagen School formulation, a securitizing actor presents an issue as an existential threat to a valued referent object. This presentation constitutes a securitizing move; successful securitization requires sufficient acceptance by a relevant audience for the issue to acquire an exceptional security status (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998).

The classic formulation associates securitization with claims that ordinary political procedures are inadequate and that exceptional measures may be justified. Later scholarship has complicated this model by emphasizing political agency, institutional setting, audience composition, and the social context in which security claims are made. Audience acceptance is consequently important, but neither its form nor the precise threshold for successful securitization is understood identically across the literature (Balzacq, 2005).

Securitization theory does not imply that the underlying danger is fabricated. Military aggression, terrorism, disease, technological disruption, and environmental hazards may present serious material risks. The theory asks how such dangers are represented as threats to particular referent objects, how those claims gain or fail to gain political acceptance, and what follows when an issue is governed through the language and practices of security.

7.1 The Politics of Defining Threats

Threat perception reflects more than material capability or statistical probability. Historical experience, identity, institutional authority, political discourse, expertise, and audience expectations can affect which dangers receive priority and how they are interpreted. Security agendas consequently differ across political communities even where they confront similar underlying conditions (Balzacq, 2005).

Treating an issue as a security problem can change both political attention and the range of responses considered legitimate. Security framing may accelerate decision-making, concentrate resources, or strengthen coordination. It may also facilitate secrecy, emergency authority, surveillance, restrictions on ordinary political procedures, or greater reliance on coercive institutions where such measures would otherwise face stronger resistance (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998).

The central analytical question is how well the security framing corresponds to the danger and what political consequences follow from it. Evidence concerning the severity of the threat, the referent being protected, the authority claimed by decision-makers, and the effects of the chosen response all require scrutiny. Securitization is most useful as a framework for studying the politics of security claims, not as a presumption that security measures are either justified or illegitimate.

7.2 Who Provides International Security?

States retain a distinctive position in international security because they control armed forces, exercise coercive and regulatory authority, conduct diplomacy, collect intelligence, and command substantial public resources. Security governance, however, increasingly involves arrangements in which governmental authority interacts with international institutions, regional organizations, private actors, and transnational networks rather than operating through national institutions alone (Krahmann, 2003).

The composition of these arrangements depends on the security problem involved. International organizations may coordinate collective responses or technical cooperation; police and intelligence agencies work through cross-border networks; scientific institutions contribute expertise on health, environmental, or technological risks; and private companies operate much of the infrastructure on which digital communications, transportation, finance, and energy systems depend. Research on global security assemblages has also shown how public and private security provision can become closely intertwined rather than remaining institutionally separate (Abrahamsen and Williams, 2009).

Different problems consequently require different combinations of authority and instruments. Military defense and deterrence address threats involving coercive capability and strategic signaling, while diplomacy, mediation, arms control, policing, sanctions, technological regulation, public-health coordination, infrastructure protection, and resilience planning operate through other mechanisms. The classification of an issue as “security” does not determine the appropriate response; the response must follow from the nature of the threat, the vulnerabilities involved, and the capabilities of the actors expected to address it.

Also read

• Balance of Power in International Relations

• Realism in International Relations

• Liberalism in International Relations

• Theories Of International Relations

• Understanding NATO: History, Structure, and Global Role

• NATO Policy and Decision-Making Explained

• What Is a Proxy War?

• Crisis of Multilateralism and Global Order

Conclusion

International security is not a fixed catalogue of dangers. It is a field concerned with serious threats to valued referents and with the political, strategic, and institutional means through which those threats are interpreted and addressed. The state remains a central referent because questions of war, coercion, sovereignty, and survival continue to structure international politics, but security analysis also extends to individuals, societies, institutions, and interconnected systems exposed to forms of harm that cannot be understood through military competition alone.

The widening of security studies increased its explanatory reach, but it also created a problem of conceptual boundaries. If every harmful political, economic, environmental, technological, or social condition is classified as a security issue, the concept loses much of its analytical value. Serious analysis must distinguish among threats, risks, and vulnerabilities, identify the referent whose security is at stake, and explain the causal mechanism through which harm may occur.

A defensible international security assessment should then connect diagnosis to response. It should ask which actors possess relevant authority and capability, what instruments are suited to the type of insecurity involved, and whether the proposed response is likely to reduce the danger without generating greater insecurity elsewhere. International security remains a useful concept when those distinctions are made explicitly rather than when security functions as a general label for political importance.

References

Abrahamsen, R. and Williams, M.C. (2009) ‘Security beyond the state: Global security assemblages in international politics’, International Political Sociology, 3(1), pp. 1–17.

Balzacq, T. (2005) ‘The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context’, European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), pp. 171–201.

Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Farrell, H. and Newman, A.L. (2019) ‘Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion’, International Security, 44(1), pp. 42–79.

Gheciu, A. and Wohlforth, W.C. (eds.) (2018) The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hendershot, C. and Mutimer, D. (2018) ‘Critical security studies’, in Gheciu, A. and Wohlforth, W.C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60–70.

Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation under the security dilemma’, World Politics, 30(2), pp. 167–214.

Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Krahmann, E. (2003) ‘Conceptualizing security governance’, Cooperation and Conflict, 38(1), pp. 5–26.

Krause, K. and Williams, M.C. (2018) ‘Security and “security studies”: Conceptual evolution and historical transformation’, in Gheciu, A. and Wohlforth, W.C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–28.

Kupchan, C.A. and Kupchan, C.A. (1995) ‘The promise of collective security’, International Security, 20(1), pp. 52–61.

Paris, R. (2001) ‘Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?’, International Security, 26(2), pp. 87–102.

Quinn, A. (2018) ‘Realisms’, in Gheciu, A. and Wohlforth, W.C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–85.

Schelling, T.C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sjoberg, L. (2009) ‘Introduction to security studies: Feminist contributions’, Security Studies, 18(2), pp. 183–213.

Snyder, G.H. (1984) ‘The security dilemma in alliance politics’, World Politics, 36(4), pp. 461–495.

Tang, S. (2009) ‘The security dilemma: A conceptual analysis’, Security Studies, 18(3), pp. 587–623.

United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, San Francisco, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-1&chapter=1&clang=_en (Accessed: 17 August 2026).

United Nations (2008) United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines. New York: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field Support [online]. Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/capstone_eng_0.pdf (Accessed: 17 August 2026).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1994) Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press [online]. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994 (Accessed: 17 August 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2012) Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/66/290, adopted 10 September 2012 [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/66/290 (Accessed: 17 August 2026).

Walt, S.M. (1991) ‘The renaissance of security studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), pp. 211–239.

Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics’, International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391–425.