Chapter Five

Understanding Security
5.1. Meaning and Definition
What is security?
 The concept of security is a highly contested one. The contested issues are:
1. ‘whose’ security?; security for ‘whom’ or for which values (i.e. the referent object to
be made secure) Security for whom? In most cases, the answer would either refer to
some or all individuals or to some or all states. Security for which values? (Individuals,
states, and other social actors have many values).
2. Security from ‘what’ – the threat object? From what threats? Those who use the term
security usually have in mind particular kinds of threats. Home security systems, for
example, are usually directed at potential burglars; and national security systems
are often directed at other states. Since threats to acquired values can arise from
many sources, it is helpful if this dimension is clearly specified. In ordinary language,
however, one often finds references to epidemics, floods, earthquakes, or droughts as
'threats' to acquired values. First and depending upon the particular object of concern,
the actual threats to security need to be identified.
3. ‘how’ to provide security – issue of strategies. Second we have to ask ourselves which
means and strategies ought to be employed in order to minimize, or even eradicate
these threats. Third, we ought to consider how much resources should be devoted to
increasing security, and how the resources spent should be divided among different
means and strategies. At what cost? The pursuit of security always involves costs, i.e.,
the sacrifice of other goals that could have been pursued with the resources devoted
to security.
4. The degree of security – how much security? – full, absolute, partial security and
how do you measure it – are they achievable?
5. Who is going to do the securing? Is it always state institutions that are best suited to
provide security, or is there also a role for the private and/or non-governmental sector
to play?
6. What happens when certain issues are treated as security issues? The most well-known
response to this question is the so-called “securitization” theory developed by Buzan,
Wæver and de Wilde (1998).
By securitization it is to mean a succession of authoritative claims or statements wherein a
particular issue (be it military, political, economic, societal or environmental) is
successfully presented as an existential threat to a referent object, in turn requiring
emergency measures exceeding … “the normal bounds of political procedure” by
legitimizing the breaking of established norms and rules. If an issue is securitized it is
presented as so urgent, existential and important »… whether certain issues should be
framed and treated as security issues (whether they should be securitized) is a conscious
1|Page
and deliberate decision. A case in point is, of course, the US-led “War on Terror”,
securitizing the issue of terrorism to the extent that it justifies measures that violate human
rights and international law.

 Most security theorists limit their concern to two: “whose” security and “how” to
provide security
 “Security is the absence of threat to acquired values” – Arnold Wolfers.
 How inclusive are the acquired values to be made secured – is it for instance all the
acquired values of the state, including national welfare & national interests?
 Values are ranked by some security experts – prime value, core vs peripheral
values, marginal values.
 Writing from various perspectives, most experts argue that security is definitionally
concerned with ‘freedom,’ or ‘emancipation,’ from threats to core values for both
individuals and groups.
 Security is valued by individuals, families, communities, state officials, states,
regions, etc.
 Security is highly political & there is also an ideological dimension to the security
debate.
The common definition is the absence of threat. In a world of perceived uncertainty and
danger, the desire for security becomes a central concern of political thought and action.
How is security to be achieved? Who is to be secured, against which dangers? It is absence
or at least unlikeliness – of threats to a certain object.
 David Baldwin has defined security astutely as a “low probability of damage to
acquired values”. It is the absence of acute threats to the minimal acceptable levels of
the basic values that a people consider essential to its survival.

 The concept of national security has traditionally included political independence and
territorial integrity as values to be protected; but other values are sometimes added.

2|Page
 These may include physical safety, economic welfare, autonomy, psychological well-
being, and so on.

5.2. Different Conceptualization of Security: State Vs Human Security

The most prominent of which are of course “human life” and “state sovereignty”. Traditional
Approach (Realism): Traditionally, security has been thought of in terms of security of states
from military attacks by other states. This is a realistic approach which views states as the
sole referent object of security and rejects any broader concepts of security. This approach,
however, has been strongly challenged by more recent schools of thought, namely (the
Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach).
The Realist School had been making a great contribution in security studies from the beginning
of the World War II to the end of the Cold War. This school, however, has been challenged
by many schools of thoughts after the end of the Cold War on the ground that realism has no
place for security studies any longer because it does not fit in the contemporary changes
and challenges. Despite these arguments, the adherents of the realism claim that the school is
still relevant in dealing with the security issues because realists believe that globalization does
not change their principles. The theory argues that such changes did not occur at the level of
the system. Realism views international politics as being in an anarchical condition, with
states choosing relative gains over absolute gains. Argues that the architecture of the interstate
system is still dangerous; states are still the main actors in international politics, which
implies that realists have a state-centric understanding of security. This approach views
states as the main actors in international politics because they strive to maintain their
sovereignty in anarchical conditions. Realists still regard states as the main referent object of
security because of the constant threat of war, and therefore limit security studies to the
military threat against state sovereignty and security.

 The Realist Theory

3|Page
  What is the primary focus of security from a (neo-realist) realist perspective and
how can it be provided?
 The “traditional” conception of “national” security refers safeguarding the population
and core values of a nation:
 Securing the state
• Against external threats
• Of a military/forceful nature
 The realist perspective has dominated the IR security debate for over 60 years
 In neo-realism, the state is the primary referent of security
 Stephen Walt’s (1991), neo-realist definition of security:
 ‘security has to do with the threats, use and control of military force in the context of
the specific policies that states adopt in order to prepare for, prevent or engage in war’.
 It privileges military power as the decisive instrument in achieving security.
 As such, security is conceived by proponents in terms of the management and control of
predictable risks and threats to the state.
Basic Assumptions
1. Most states will be unduly concerned with the end, using both pre-emptive and
preventive military actions.
2. Many states will seek to maximize their security through rational actions that may alarm
policy makers in other states or most probably heighten their insecurity, real or perceived.
 Exponents call this scenario the security dilemma; a phenomenon heightened by the
prevalence of “structural anarchy” in the international system.
 The cold war period was dominated by state-centric militaristic and power politics.
Much emphasis was accorded to national security relegating the human security to the
periphery.
 In this period it was simply assumed that if the territorial integrity of a state is
secured automatically peoples’ security is guaranteed. The idea of security was
restricted to safeguarding national interests, defending territory, and avoiding a
global nuclear war.
 The truth was and is many states have become major perpetrators of violence and sources
of insecurity to their own citizens.

4|Page
5|Page
Human Security Approach: human security approach came into being as a challenge to the
state-centric approach because it shifted the reference object of security from states to
6|Page
individuals. The notion that individuals are the object of security and states are means to
serve such an object is accepted by all supporters of human security. However, adherents of
human security do not agree about what human security should consist of. The first perception,
the school of Rights and Rule of Law, which stems from liberal democratic theory. This
school argues that serious threats to human security come from the denial of fundamental
rights such as the right of minority (self-determination) and the lack of the rule of law. The
second perspective is derived from the Human Development Report issued by the United
Nations Development (UNDP) Programme in 1994. According to the report, human security
has two aspects: ‘first safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression.
And second, protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life—
whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’. The emergence of the concept is understood
in terms of such developments as
 erosion of the bipolar model,
 expanding globalization,
 decline of state capabilities,
 proliferation of new international actors,
 normative changes and
 exacerbation of new security threats and
 increase in intrastate conflicts.
 These developments have shifted the focus from state security towards human security
and a kind of ‘intellectual revolution’.

The report defines human security through seven areas, namely economic security, food
security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security,
and political security. The third one is a narrow perspective because it looks at human security
as freedom from fear. This approach assumes that war is one of the serious threats to human
security. The ‘freedom from fear’ component of human security is about the right of the
individual to be protected against violence committed against him or her by his or her own
government.
 The 1994 UNDP HDR has played a major role in its development and popularization. It
posited that people could be insecure even if the state is secure ‘as governments
sometimes use armies to repress their own people’.
 It indicated that human security has two interrelated and interdependent aspects: freedom
from fear and freedom from want.
7|Page
  Freedom from Want”
 Elements: “safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression”;
economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political dimensions
 “Freedom from Fear”
 Elements: physical security from violent threats, conflict and crime, post-conflict
peacebuilding, small arms, land mines, women in conflict, etc.

8|Page
This first component of human security is generally connected to the human rights tradition,
“which sees the state as the problem and the source of threats to individual security.” The
fourth approach looks at human security as an umbrella to cover many contemporary
security issues such as HIV/AIDS, drugs, terrorism, small arms, and inhumane weapons.
The last approach is distinguishes several types of human security, which are—
environmental, personal, physical, economic, social, political, and cultural security.
However, it should be noted that some argue that human security approach can be
problematic for many reasons. First of all, the concept is very confusing because it is used
with human rights and human development interchangeably. Furthermore, Buzan argues
that human security approach hopes to include almost everything and, subsequently, in
reality includes nothing. Second, Kerr argues that human security discourses are used as a
justification to invade other states. For example, the USA invaded Iraq through adopting
human security discourse. Thus, the narrow perception of human security is becoming a tool to
intervene in internal affairs of developing countries and impose Western values.

9|Page
HS refers to “protecting individuals from existential and pervasive threats to their personal
safety and physical well-being. The protection of the vital core of all human lives from critical
and pervasive environmental, economic, food, health, personal and political threats. ” Human
Security Commission
• HS is
• A people-centred security concept
• Includes threats from a state against its citizens
The UN applied HS to the following situations of insecurity :
1. Transition to peace and sustainable development in fragile and conflict-affected
communities (Conflict Prevention & Peacebuilding).
2. Victims of human trafficking, their protection and empowerment.
3. Responding to the multidimensional consequences of climate-related threats & man-
made hazards.
4. Urban violence and its impact on health, education, economic, personal and community
security.
5. Poverty reduction, social inclusion and community-based development in isolated areas.
6. Economic, environmental and social components of health-related insecurities.
Finally, human security is intertwined with the responsibility to protect and humanitarian
intervention. These principles, however, are always selective. Eg, the international community
intervened in Libya, but not Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. In brief, human security promotes
national security and power politics because the discourse to fulfill human security and
human rights mainly depends on great powers.
 It has adopted broad and nearly all-inclusive conception and in a way contributed to
expand the concept of security beyond narrow conceptions of state defense against
external military threats.
 HS is a concept and principle of policy formulation and action having such features:
 universal,
 people-centered,

10 | P a g e
  interdependent,
 preventative and
 Comprehensive and all-encompassing
Competing Conceptions
 The cursory reading of pertinent literatures testifies that among the proponents
there are two competing conceptions of human security: broad and narrow.
 These main streams of thought have provided competitive explanations on its
meaning, elements, scope and relevance.
A. Broader Conception
 The UN, many governments in Africa and Asia and a group of influential scholars
are major proponents of the broader conception.
 In its often-cited 1994 HDR, the UNDP provides that the concept has two broad
aspects: freedom from fear and freedom from want.
 HS refers to ‘safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression and
protection from sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life’.
 It is a framework that aspires to merge security with development, ensuring basic
human needs, protecting and empowering individuals and promote social progress.
 This conception seems to be a departure from the state-centric conception as it
focuses on the individual and security can be achieved mainly through non-military
means.
 The Japanese sponsored Commission on Human Security defined it as ‘the
protection of the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms
and human fulfillment’ and it connects freedom from want, freedom from fear and
freedom to take action on one’s own behalf
 The General Assembly of the UN, in its 2005 World Summit declared that human
security is a condition entitled to all individuals to live in ‘freedom and dignity, free
from poverty and despair and freedom from fear and freedom from want’.
 Kofi Annan has also endorsed the broader notion by stating that it ‘encompasses
human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring
that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential’.
 The most notable and influential shcolar Mahbub ul Haq who sought to humanize
security and played a pivotal role in the conceptualization and popularization. He
strongly argued that distinction should be made between human and state security.
Human security is not only about the physical safety but also about the ability of
individuals and communities ‘to secure and hold basic goods. As a new paradigm it
aspires to ensure ‘security of all the people everywhere’.
 Amartya Sen has purported that human security links economic, developmental,
political and social aspects. For its realization it is important to ensure daily living,
social and economic provisions and political participation.

11 | P a g e
  For Ramesh Thakur it is an all-inclusive and comprehensive incorporating both
positive and negative freedoms. It is more than safety from violent threats
encompassing the social, psychological, political and economic vulnerabilities.
 Instead of focusing on short-term and immediate emergencies; the approach advises
to have a long-term perspective.
 It also calls for the involvement of various actors, though state is always essential.
 At the core of the concept is protecting people from various insecurities and
vulnerabilities. The approach calls for thicker and broader understanding. It is a
normative and prescriptive paradigm suggesting bringing the individual into the
center of security and development policies and actions.
B. Narrow Conception
 Though the broader approach has many proponents there are serious criticisms on
the basis of normative and practical considerations.
 The major criticism of the approach is the scope of the definition is so vast that ‘it is
difficult to determine what might be excluded from the definition ’ and it is a
“shopping / laundry list” as it includes ‘all bad things that can happen’. The critics
contend that the broad definition has the risk of being so wide and unworkable.
 Consequently an alternative notion has emerged which claims that both for
analytical and practical purposes the concept needs to be more ‘lightly defined’.
 The narrow approach is usually associated with Canada which emphasized on
threats of political violence by the state or any other organized political group.
 According to this approach the concern of the concept is on freedom from fear. The
approach focuses on the human consequences of armed conflict and dangers in
relation to state failure.
 The notion is about freedom from fear not about freedom from want.
 It is concerned with threats of organized violence and on ‘the more immediate
necessity for intervention rather than long-term strategic planning and investing for
sustainable and secure development’.
 This approach is held by many as contextual, practical and pragmatist.

Possible Types of Human Security Threats

• Economic security (Persistent poverty, unemployment).
• Food security (Hunger, famine).
• Health security (Deadly infectious diseases, unsafe food, malnutrition, lack of access to
basic health care)
• Environmental security (Environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural
disasters, pollution)
• Personal security (Physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic violence, child labor)
• Community security (Inter-ethnic, religious and other identity based tensions).

12 | P a g e
 • Political security (Political repression, human rights abuses).
As a summary, the traditional approach of security (State Security) mainly regards states as a
sole referent object of security and refutes any attempt to broaden the concept of security. Its
main focus is the State. Human Security is a people-centered approach to foreign policy
which recognizes that lasting stability cannot be achieved until people are protected from
violent threats to their rights, safety or lives. Human security’s main focus is on the
individual.

Regional security complex theory (RSCT) is a theory of international relations developed

by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver and advanced in their 2003 work Regions and Powers: the
Structure of International Security. Buzan and Wæver are perhaps best known as the key figures
behind the influential Copenhagen School of security studies, in which the main principle is
examining security as a social construct. RSCT posits that international security should be
examined from a regional perspective, and that relations between states (and other actors)
exhibit regular, geographically clustered patterns. Regional security complex is the term
coined by Buzan and Wæver to describe such structures.

13 | P a g e
Regional security complexes (RSC) are defined as distinct and stable patterns of security
interaction between actors. They are distinguished from one another by degrees of interaction.
The level of interaction between members of the same RSC is high, while between members
of different RSCs it is comparatively low. As the name implies regional security complexes
are by nature geographical, consisting of neighboring actors and being insulated from one
another by natural barriers such as oceans, deserts and mountain ranges. Individual states
can also function as such “insulators” between RSCs. RSCT posits that actors’ actions and
motivations in the field of international security are heavily regional in character. This
means that an actor’s security concerns are primarily generated in their immediate neighborhood.
The security of each actor in a region interacts with the security of the other actors. Most
security concerns do not travel well over distances, and threats within an actor’s immediate
neighborhood are therefore most likely felt the strongest. Due to the way adjacency works
there is often intense security interdependence within an RSC, but interaction with outsiders
is much less active. As Buzan and Wæver state:
“Simple physical adjacency tends to generate more security interaction among neighbours
than among states located in different areas, a point also emphasised by Walt (1987: 276-7)
Adjacency is potent for security because many threats travel more easily over short distances
than over long ones.
The theory is complicated by existence of actors with global security interests and force
projection capabilities. However, Buzan and Wæver posit that even the global powers’ security
interests are fundamentally regional in nature. Their involvement in regional security issues
should be most often seen as them being drawn in by regionally generated matters; not
necessarily as great power issues penetrating an RSC, although that can happen as well. RSCs
can be interpreted as systems in and of themselves, as “micro” systems embedded in a larger,
global political system. RSCs contain their own security dynamics, which are in normal
circumstances largely independent from global security dynamics.

14 | P a g e
 Chapter Four
Culture of Peace
Culture of peace is defined as “a mosaic of identities, attitudes, values, beliefs and institutional
patterns that lead people to live nurturantly with one another and the earth itself without the aid
of structured power differentials, to deal creatively with their differences, and share resources.”
Likewise, Article 1 of the United Nations Resolution (A/53/L.79) defined culture of peace as: “a
set of values, attitudes, traditions and modes of behavior and ways of life, based on respect for
life, ending of violence and promotion of the practice of non-violence through education,
dialogue and cooperation.” Moreover, eight bases of the culture of peace are identified in the
United Nations Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/243). These are culture
of peace through education, sustainable economic and social development, respect for all human
rights, equality between women and men, democratic participation, understanding, tolerance and
solidarity, communication and free flow of information and knowledge, and international peace
and security. This UN conceptualization of the culture of peace is based on the assumption of the
existence and/or potential existence of a coherent set of cultural traits that either promote
violence or Peace. For peace and nonviolence to prevail, we need to:
1. Foster a culture of peace through education
By revising the educational curricula to promote qualitative values, attitudes and behaviours of a
culture of peace, including peaceful conflict-resolution, dialogue, consensus-building and active
non-violence. Such an educational approach should be geared also to promote sustainable
economic and social development.

2. Promote sustainable economic and social development

By reducing economic and social inequalities, by eradicating poverty and by assuring sustainable
food security, social justice, durable solutions to debt problems, empowerment of women,
special measures for groups with special needs, environmental sustainability.

3. Promote respect for all human rights

Human rights and a culture of peace are complementary: whenever war and violence dominate,
there is no possibility to ensure human rights; at the same time, without human rights, in all their
dimensions, there can be no culture of peace.

4. Ensure equality between women and men

Through full participation of women in economic, social and political decision-making,
elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women, support and assistance to
women in need.

15 | P a g e
 5. Foster democratic participation
Indispensable foundations for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security are
democratic principles, practices and participation in all sectors of society, a transparent and
accountable governance and administration, the combat against terrorism, organized crime,
corruption, illicit drugs and money laundering.
6. Advance understanding, tolerance and solidarity
To abolish war and violent conflicts we need to transcend and overcome enemy images with
understanding, tolerance and solidarity among all peoples and cultures. Learning from our
differences, through dialogue and the exchange of information, is an enriching process.
7. Support participatory communication and the free flow of
information and knowledge
freedom of information and communication and the sharing of information and knowledge are
indispensable for a culture of peace. However, measures need to be taken to address the issue of
violence in the media, including new information and communication technologies.

8. Promote international peace and security

The gains in human security and disarmament in recent years, including nuclear weapons treaties
and the treaty banning land mines, should encourage us to increase our efforts in negotiation of
peaceful settlements, elimination of production and traffic of arms and weapons, humanitarian
solutions in conflict situations, post-conflict initiatives. The coherence of these bases, however,
is challenged by various scholars who question the analytical utility of the UN conceptualization.
The coherence problem, in fact, is the result of compromise needed to get the approval of
member states of the United Nations especially those of Western states. The culture of peace is
also defined in opposition to the culture of violence which, critics argue, is not sufficient and
hence additional qualities are needed. In spite of such criticisms, it is asserted that ‘...we can use
the UN bases to measure some dimensions that seem important aspects of a culture of peace; that
nations can be characterized by using these dimensions; and that if we repeat these measures
over time, we may be able to assess progress towards the development of the UN ideal’.

Non-Violent approaches to peace

Is diplomacy practicable as a non-violent peacemaking tool in today's world? Diplomacy
provides an opportunity for states to communicate their intentions during times of tension and it
also offers a face saving way of ending conflict. For instance, the United States maintained high
level talks with the North Vietnamese in an attempt to negotiate an "honourable" withdrawal
from Vietnam which eventually resulted in the signing of the Paris 1973 ceasefire agreement.
Diplomacy is also a relatively inexpensive alternative to war which costs lives and resources and
is difficult to control. However, despite the many successes of diplomacy as a nonviolent means
of peacemaking it is not a panacea to end all conflict and in some cases it will delay or at worst
exacerbate conflict between states. The 1938 Munich Agreement which was to create "peace in

16 | P a g e
our time" failed as an appeasement strategy and 12 months later the Second World War began. It
was not diplomacy but rather NATO attacks that finally ended the massive civilian casualties in
cities and towns throughout Bosnia. In some cases, diplomatic negotiations fail to prevent
conflict or tension between states because the issues evoke uncompromising nationalist
sentiment (e.g. Serb refusal to disengage militarily from Kosovo) or there are entrenched security
concerns that stifle negotiations. A recent example was Pakistan's refusal to cave in to world
pressure (despite the risk of sanctions) not to detonate a nuclear device following India's nuclear
test. Diplomacy is a useful method for defusing and in some cases preventing violent conflict
between states, but if it does not address the underlying issues behind conflict it can fail. In
summary, diplomacy has a role to play in peacemaking however it cannot always prevent war or
make peace, although it does provide a framework and opportunity for negotiations if the parties
are motivated to participate in the process.

Having examined non-violent approaches to peacemaking between states now let us consider
the use of non-violent techniques employed by mass movements within states. Mass movements
have succeeded in overcoming structural violence perpetrated by the state through the use of
non-violent strategies such as civil disobedience, mass protests, hunger strikes, boycotts, etc.
Non-violent resistance was particularly successful in India against the British, however it has
enjoyed less success against regimes where the media is controlled by the state and public
accountability of the armed forces and police are non-existent. The mass internal unrest in China
in the 1980's culminating in the Tienaman Square massacre lead to government reprisals and
further crackdowns on political dissidents despite world condemnation. Nonviolent protests in
Tibet against Chinese occupation have been severely dealt with by Chinese authorities resulting
in thousands of civilian deaths. The uprising known as the Prague Spring of 1968 by the Czech
population against Soviet domination resulted in Warsaw Pact troops being deployed in the
country and liberal reforms being abandoned. Although world sympathy for these movements
was strong and continues to be in the case of Tibet, these non-violent mass movements were not
instrumental in bringing about reform or democracy.

However, mass movements employing non-violent forms of protest have been instrumental in
ending state sponsored oppression and violence in a number of cases.
Notably these successes have been against liberal-democracies (e.g. Britain, South Africa) rather
than totalitarian regimes (e.g. Chile, Soviet Union and China). Ghandi relied on moral persuasion
and "the truth" to confront British oppression in India before he encouraged non-violent action
which included boycotts and demonstrations while he encouraged passive resistance; he also
curbed terrorist activity by pro-independence Indians. Ghandi believed that a "just society could
only be attained by good means". Non-violence for some is more than an action it can also
encompass principles that dictate a way of life (e.g. the Quakers and followers of Ghandi).

17 | P a g e
Despite the opposition to violence and terrorism by advocates of non-violence many non-violent
struggles have been simultaneously accompanied by terrorist or guerilla activity. This was the
case in India, South Africa, and Northern Ireland and during the formation of the state of Israel.
It is difficult to attribute the success enjoyed by mass movements in for instance South Africa,
Israel and East Timor solely to non-violent actions. In evaluating the success of non-violent
approaches to peacemaking, it is important to consider the socio-political context in which these
movements operate. The citizens of the Czech Republic and Hungry gained self-determination in
the 1980's only after the collapse of the Soviet Union - an event unrelated to the nonviolent
protests in these countries decades earlier. The possibility of East Timorese independence has
arisen after economic pressure and political change in Indonesia, not because of non-violent
protests in Dili. Media coverage (e.g newspapers, television and radio) has also played an
important role in communicating the non-violent message of popular mass movements to the rest
of the world. For instance, public pressure (particularly in Western democracies) forced major
corporations and governments to cease trade, investment and sporting contacts with South Africa
following media coverage of demonstrators being dispersed by police using whips and attack
dogs. The absence of media coverage of non-violent demonstrations can mean that state
sponsored repression and violence remains hidden from the eye of the world.

In summary, popular mass movements engaged in non-violent actions have in many cases
succeeded in overcoming structural violence and repression perpetrated by the state and achieved
a peace that was preferable to the status quo. In evaluating whether non-violent action is
practicable in today's world, it is important to consider factors that have influenced its success in
the past. It can be argued that media coverage; the type of regime (e.g. liberal democracy,
dictatorship); the socio-political climate; and the presence of guerilla forces are all factors which
play an important role in influencing the success or otherwise of popular mass movement
engaged in non-violent struggles. Non-violent strategies appear less successful when they are
given no media coverage and the state perpetrating the oppression is a dictatorship or totalitarian
regime.

Democratic Peace Theory

Over the past two decades, the "democratic peace" hypothesis, that wars do not occur between
democracies-has received a great deal of attention. Democratic peace is the proposition that
democracies are more peaceful in their foreign relations. This idea dates back centuries, at least
to Immanuel Kant and other 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. In recent decades it has
constituted a major research agenda, competing with and arguably supplanting other research
agendas such as neo-realism. The democratic peace proposition has many possible empirical and
theoretical forms. On the empirical side, some propose that democracies are more peaceful in
their relations with all other states in the system (“monadic” democratic peace); some propose
that democracies are more peaceful only in their relations with other democracies (“dyadic”

18 | P a g e
democratic peace); others argue that the more democracies there are in a region or the
international system, the more peaceful the region or international system will be (“systemic”
democratic peace); and still others doubt the existence of any significant relationship between
democracy and peace. Notably, most although not all empirical research on the democratic peace
has employed quantitative methods of analysis. On the theoretical side, there are many different
accounts of the relationship between democracy and peace, with most focusing on domestic
political institutions, domestic political norms, and constructed identities. The democratic peace
proposition is connected to many other propositions linking domestic politics and international
relations, including that democracies are more likely to cooperate with each other, that
democracies are more likely to win the wars they fight, that escalating military casualties
degrade public support for war, that leaders initiate conflict to secure their domestic hold on
power (the diversionary hypothesis), that democracies fight shorter wars, that different kinds of
democracies experience different kinds of conflict behavior, that different kinds of authoritarian
systems experience different kinds of conflict behavior, and others. The democratic peace also
overlaps with related ideas such as the liberal peace and the commercial peace.

Commercial Peace Theory

Literatures show that military conflict can be extremely disruptive to economic activity and
impede long term economic performance. Studies find that conflict between countries
significantly reduces international trade and thus seriously damages national and global
economic welfare. There is ongoing debate among scholars whether the increase of bilateral
economic interdependence reduces interstate conflict. The “liberal peace” view in political
science—traced back to Montesquieu, Kant, Angell and Schumpeter— emphasizes that mutual
economic interdependence can be a conduit of peace. It suggests that a higher degree of bilateral
economic interdependence limits the incentive to use military force in interstate relations. For
instance, a more trade dependent state is less likely to fight a partner because of the larger
opportunity cost associated with the loss of trade. Business elites—who gain most from an
increased economic interdependence—will also lobby the state to restrict the use of military
force against an important trading partner.

19 | P a g e