Suchergebnisse

Emanuel Adler & Michael Barnett's recently edited volume, Security Communities (1998), purports to explore & explain the development of relationships in which peaceful resolution of conflicts is the norm. An examination of this effort finds it wanting. The editors' approach neglects one of the most crucial of questions: "Whose security is guaranteed by such communities?" An examination of the editors' assumptions reveals that security communities are created to maintain the economic & political power of elites, often at the expense of the populations over which they rule. Moreover, their state-centric approach ignores the importance & influence of transnational phenomena. Finally, the assumption that increased interaction naturally leads to reduced conflict is simplistic at best. The case of West Africa, in particular, the creation of the Economic Community Cease-Fire Monitoring Group, illustrates the shortcomings of Adler & Barnett's arguments. 16 References. K. A. Larsen

Generally speaking, the traditional approach of security mainly regards states as a sole referent object of security and refutes any attempt to broaden the concept of security. This understanding is known as a realist approach. This approach, however, has been recently challenged by the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. The Copenhagen School assumes that there is now a duality of security: state security and societal security. However, both the Welsh School and the human security school look at individuals as a sole referent object of security. This article critically reviews the traditional approaches of security, the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. This article finally argues that the Copenhagen School could successfully broaden the concept of security, and therefore, it is more convincing when compared to other schools.