Peace, Power, and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
| Author | Barry Buzan |
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338402100203 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Peace,
Power,
and
Security:
Contending
Concepts
in
the
Study
of
International
Relations*
BARRY BUZAN
Department
of
International
Studies,
University
of
Warwick
This
article
compares
the
merits
of
three
concepts
—
peace,
power
and
security
—
as
approaches
to
the
study
of
International
Relations.
It
argues
that
peace
and
power
offer
only
partial,
and
significantly
flawed,
views,
and
yet
that
thinking
within
the
field
has
become
locked
into
an
excessively
polarised
framework
which
is
dominated
by
the
opposition
between
them.
The
necessity
for
a
new
framework
arises
from
the
intellectual
exhaustion
and
restrictiveness
of
this
prevailing
orthodoxy.
Security
is
put
forward
as
an
alternative
frame-
work
which
is
capable
of
encompassing
most
of
what
is
useful
from
the
other
two,
plus
much
of
the
middle
ground
that
is
obscured
by
them.
The
argument
proceeds
by
comparing
the
quality
of
insight
which
each
of
the
three
concepts
offers
into
two
of
the
most
fundamental
elements
in
international
relations:
’the
anarchy’
and
’the
arms
race’.
The
case
is
made
that
each
of
these
elements
consitutes
a
highly
durable
feature
of
international
relations,
but
not
that
is
either
immutable
within
its
form,
or
necessarily
malign
in
its
effect.
Power
and
peace
are
seen
to
give
only
narrow
and
incomplete
views
of
the
anarchy
and
the
arms
race.
Both
result
in
excessively
rigid
and
negative
interpretations,
with
power
leading
to
an
over-emphasis
on
the
inflexibility
of
both
elements,
and
peace
leading
to
over-optimism
about
their
removability.
Security
is
seen
to
offer
a
more
balanced
perspective.
It
takes
into
account
the
durability
of
the
anarchy
and
the
arms
race,
but
does
not
lead
to
necessarily
negative
views
of
them.
It
opens
up
the
considerable
scope
for
positive
change
which
exists
within
the
two
elements,
and
so
provides
the
basis
for
a
synthesis
of
realist-idealism.
1.
Introduction
The
theme
of
this
special
issue
of
the
Journal
of
Peace
Research
indicates
the
existence
of
broad
dissatisfaction
with
the
basic
concepts
which
have
dominated
most
thinking
in
the
field
of
International
Relations.
Peace
Research
itself
began
as
a
revolt
against
the
power-oriented
conceptions
of
the
Realist
orthodoxy
in
Inter-
national
Relations.
The
present
call
for
’a
new
paradigm
in
thinking
about
defence
and
security’
marks
a
recognition
that
peace
has
proved
as
conceptually
inadequate
as
power
in
providing
an
underlying
orientation
for
em-
pirical
studies.
Although
peace has
served
well
as
a
perspective
from
which
to
mount
a
critique
of
Realism,
it
has
failed
to
generate
a
com-
prehensive
alternative
approach
to
the
study
of
international
relations.
The
argument
in
this
paper
is
that
the
division
between
the
power
and
peace
views
has
itself
become
a
barrier
to
progressive
thinking.
In
*
This
article
extends
an
argument
suggested,
but
not
developed,
in
the
Introduction
to
People,
States,
and
Fear.-
The
National
Security
Problem
in
Inter-
national
Relations
(Buzan
1983).
In
the
book,
I
establish
peace
and
power
as
the
orthodox
con-
tending
concepts,
and
attempt
to
introduce
security
as
an
alternative
to
them.
The
argument
there
is
predominantly
concerned
with
developing
the
conceptual
framework
of
security
by
exploring
its
domain,
its
referent
objects,
its
contradictions,
and
its
potential
for
generating
related
concepts
which
might
usefully
be
applied
to
both
theoretical
and
empirical
work.
Here,
I
wish
to
return
to
the
same
starting
point
and,
now
armed
with
a
developed
conceptual
sense
of
security,
explore
the
relation-
ship
among
the
three
in
more
depth
than
was
possible
earlier.
The
objective
of
this
piece
is
the
same
as
that
of
the
earlier
work:
to
promote
security
as
the
basis
for
an
alternative
conceptual
framework.
But
here
the
treatment
is
more
balanced,
involving
a
comparison
of
how
the
three
concepts
relate
to
two
of
the
most
basic
elements
of
international
relations:
the
anarchy
and
the
arms
race.
I would
like
to
thank
John
Vincent
of
Keele
University
for
the
remark
that
got
me
thinking
along
these
lines,
and
Peter
Byrd
of
Warwick
University
for
comments
on
the
first
draft.
110
part,
this
barrier
arises
from
the
antagonism
generated
between
those
Realists
and
Idealists
who
take
strong
stands
on
either
side
of
the
divide.
More
subtly,
it
arises
by
locking
patterns
of
thought
into
the
unhelpful
structure
of
an
apparently
unresolvable
dilemma.
The
power
and
peace
views
do
not
mix
easily,
even
within
a
single
individual
struggling
to
find
a
more
balanced
analytical
framework.
Consequently,
to
the
extent
that
international
relations
is
thought
about
primarily
in
terms
of
these
two
concepts,
the
middle
ground
will
always
be
dif-
ficult
to
occupy.
Up
to
a
point,
opposition
between
basic
concepts
is
fruitful.
Each
serves
to
stimulate
the
other
by
providing
a
contrast,
and
criticism
creates
incentives
to
sharpen
and
deepen
thinking.
Beyond
that
point,
however,
this
process
declines
into
diminishing,
and
eventually
negative,
returns.
Opposition
becomes
institutionalised
and
politicised,
and
creative
thinking
is
either
overridden
by
the
rituals
of
intellectual
entrenchment,
or
stifled
by
the
lack
of
creative
room
within
the
tight
contradictory
confines
of
the
peace/power
dilemma.
It
is
my
view
that
this
is
the
situation
in
which
we
now
find
ourselves.
To
break
the
habits
of
a
long-familiar
con-
ceptual
orientation
is
never
easy,
but
the
quest
for
a
new
approach
requires
it.
That
quest
also
requires
a
willingness
to
re-examine
the
funda-
mental
character
of
the
problem
which
concepts
like
peace
and
power
are
designed
to
address.
Only
by
going
back
to
basics
can
we
clarify
the
insights
and
the
shortcomings
of
existing
con-
cepts.
Once
these
insights
and
shortcomings
are
made
explicit,
we
can
use
them
to
chart
new,
and
hopefully
more
fruitful,
conceptual
directions.
In
what
follows,
my
purpose
will
be
first,
to
identify
the
basic
character
of
the
problem,
and
second,
to
identify
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
alternative
concepts
in
dealing
with
it.
In
pursuing
this
second
purpose,
my
objective
will
be
to
compare
the
merits
and
flaws
of
power
and
peace
as
core
concepts,
while
at
the
same
time
developing
the
idea
of
security
as
a
synthesis
between
them.
The
concept
of
power
emphasises
the
parts
of
the
international
system
at
the
expense
of
the
whole,
and
the
dynamic
of
conflict
at
the
expense
of
that
of
harmony.
It
does,
however,
identify
a
factor
which
is
universal
both
as
a
motive
for
behaviour
and
as
a
description
of
the
relative
status
of
the
actors.
The
concept
of
peace
emphasises
both
the
international
system
as
a
whole,
and
indi-
viduals
as
its
ultimate
building
bloc,
at
the
expense
of
states,
and
emphasises
the
dynamic
of
harmony
at
the
expense
of
that
of
conflict.
Its
principal
focus
is
on
a
possible
universal
condition.
The
concept
of
security
has
traditionally
been
treated
as
a
side
effect,
arising
from
the
pos-
session
of
either
power
or
peace.
I
In
this
subordinate
role,
it
has
not
been
seen
as
a
major
concept
capable
of
encompassing
the
field
of
International
Relations
as
a
whole.
The
only
previous
attempt
to
develop
security
as
a
core
concept
was
made
by
John
Herz
during
the
early
1950s
(Herz
1950,
pp.
157-80;
1951
and
1959,
pp.
231-43).
Herz’s
idea
of
the
’security
dilemma’
focused
on
the
self-defeating
aspects
of
the
competitive
pursuit
of
power.
But
un-
fortunately,
though
it
became
an
accepted
con-
cept
within
the
literature,
it
failed
to
tran-
scend
the
Realist
paradigm.
This
failure
can
in
part
be
attributed
to
the
unlucky
timing
of
Herz’s
idea,
which
surfaced
in
the
midst
of
deep
Cold
War
conditions
highly
supportive
of
the
Realists’
power-struggle
view of
international
relations.
But
Herz’s
failure
to
achieve
a
larger
con-
ceptual
role
for
security
also
resulted
from
the
emphasis
which
characterised
his
work.
Firstly,
he
was
concernd
primarily
with
national
security,
and
therefore
like
the
Realists
he
concentrated
much
more
on
the
character
of
states
than
on
the
character
of
the
international
system.
His
focus
on
the
state
meant
that
the
concept
of
security
was
seen
principally
as
an
idea
that
led
immediately
to
an
intractable
dilemma.
Although
it
was
useful
to
have
this
problem
identified
and
labelled,
the
existence
of
the
dilemma
cut
off
interest
in
any
further
development
of
the
concept.
Arnold
Wolfers’
subsequent,
and
well-known,
essay
on
the
ambiguity
of
security
as
a
concept
was
also
based
on
the
national
security
perspective,
and
so
reinforced
the
conclusion
that
security
was
unlikely
to
prove
fruitful
as
a
broad
concept
To continue reading
Request your trial