UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, PRAGUE FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MASTER’S THESIS 2014 Ekaterina Klykova UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, PRAGUE FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Program: International and Diplomatic Studies Title: Security in International Relations: International cooperation to prevent non-states threats. Author: Ekaterina Klykova Supervisor: prof. PhDr. Zuzana Lehmannová, CSc. Declaration: Herewith I declare that I have written the Master’s Thesis on my own and I have cited all sources. Prague, 28 April, 2014 ………………… Student’s Signature Table of Contents: Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Part 1: Theoretical Part ................................................................................................................................ 4 1. 1. Realism ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Liberalism ....................................................................................................................................10 1.3 Concept of collective security .....................................................................................................13 1.4 Arms Control ...............................................................................................................................13 1.5 Democratic Peace Theory ...........................................................................................................13 1.6 Security Policies...........................................................................................................................14 1.7 Human security ...........................................................................................................................15 1.8 Copenhagen school of security ...................................................................................................17 Military Sector .........................................................................................................................................20 Environmental sector ..............................................................................................................................22 Economic sector ......................................................................................................................................25 Societal sector .........................................................................................................................................27 Political sector .........................................................................................................................................29 Part 2: Syria case.........................................................................................................................................31 2.1 Pre story ................................................................................................................................................32 2.2 Syria case ...........................................................................................................................................33 2.3 1st Geneva dialogue ...........................................................................................................................45 2.4 2nd Geneva Dialogue ..........................................................................................................................45 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................47 References:..................................................................................................................................................49 List of Tables:...............................................................................................................................................53 1 Introduction The name of that work is “International security cooperation against non state threats: Syria case”. The actuality of this topic is obvious, in the era of the strong globalization processes security can be considered as the one of most important issues. Instability in one region or even in one state can bring the whole world into troubles. Interconnections between all the spheres of human existence are important too. There is no place or state on this planet which can be totally safe (economically, military, environmentally etc) by itself. That is why it is important to find out how the international society can cooperate in case to keep this world secure. Non state threats such as terrorism, economical crimes, environmental issues, internal state conflict which was brought not from outside but from inside cannot be solved just by one state. Such threats are become an international problem which can and does affect each actor of international relations nowadays. That is why the development of international society finally came to the phase of collective security. We can see tones of examples how states are cooperation with each other, mostly on the regional level. Economical regional organizations, military unions, customs and political unions, all of them can be classified as a try of each state to find allies in case to survive. We cannot imagine this world without such co operations and interconnections. As was mentioned before- it is not possible for one state to survive without support of others, and it does not matter anymore if that state is strong (military, economically etc) or weak. In case of non state threats, as I mentioned before, the same way is working. None of the state would be able to protect itself by its own from terrorism (because terrorism became international now), or from economic failures (because most of the national economies are much interconnected within global economy) etc. The same situation is with the internal conflict. When the governing elites are not able to preserve peace on its own territory it is became an obvious problem for the regional security first, and for the international after. That is why is important to have partners which are ready to help in such situations, and of course our society by itself in need for such organizations. All of those cooperation’s we can call as collective security. Most important collective security project is United Nations. 2 In this work I will try to analyze an actions of the United Nations as an international security actor, actions of United Nations Security Council in particular, through the civil was in Syria. This thesis is orginised by two parts and some sub parts. First part is the theoretical one where I will discuss and explain the main theories on security matters and will choose the best theory in case of non state security threats. Second part is a practical one, where I will try to apply a theory which would be chosen on the case of Syrian civil war and analyze actions of the different international security actors and their tries to preserve peace in the country. So the main goals of this work will be: Firstly, as was said before, to discuss main theoretical security schools and find out the one which is better for non states reflection. Secondly, will try to analyze situation in Syria through that theory and to find out what was done by international society and what was not against non state threats. To do so it is important to have a notion about basic schools and theories of international security, through them we would be able to see the development of the understanding of the international security. Of course it is important to start with the classical theories, such as Realism and Liberalism, after that to move forward to more or less modern thoughts on security matters, such as Human security concept and Copenhagen school. After that, in my opinion, it will make sense to analyze the civil war in Syria through the Copenhagen School of Security because of its totally new way of conception of international security. In the analysis I will try to determine main security problems in Syria and how it can affect international security and the work which was done by main international security actor – United Nations, to solve those problems. Was it effective or not? In the conclusion we will see how effective nowadays international security cooperation in case of non state threats, and if the Copenhagen school of security is a good theory in case to make an analysis of such situations. To have an objective view of the situation we must use a scientific literature. Theoretical part mostly based on the works of the most prominent representatives of each theory such as a significant contributor to Realism Theory is Niccolo Machiavelli and his book “Prince”, and further key figure is Hans Morgenthau and his book “Politics among Nations” for the realism; Aristotle and Immanuel Kant and his book “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” for the liberalist idea of security; The official documents of the United Nations organization on human 3 and collective security; and for the Copenhagen School of security I used the book written by founders of that theory Barry Buzan O. Waever and J. De Wilde “Security: A New Framework for Analysis.” For the further analysis in the practical part was mostly used an official documents on Syria made by United Nations organization, such as UN report: Arab League draft resolution on Syria in the General Assembly; United Nations News Center web site to have a chronological order for the events in Syria and actions taken by United Nations, as well as texts of the final resolutions on Syria; also it is important to see this situation through the mass media, the way it represents the situation. Part 1: Theoretical Part This part is explaining the main concepts and paradigms of security during the history of world society. We should admit that recent terrorist attacks, environmental changes, transnational crime and more other things which came into international affairs together with the processes of globalization, give us a reason to reassess the meaning of the concept of the security. In the same time better examination of the evolution of the security studies can make a “new security issues” more understandable. Anyway, even there is no common notion of the security paradigm, the concepts based on different sets of issues, values and purposes which are reflecting the conflict between the theories in International relations. The debates remain among academics and can be traced back to the dominant theoretical traditions and continuing competition between them.1 Two main schools of international relations, such as Realism and Liberalism are giving a few ways of world’s security development. Through those two approaches we will try to see firstly, the historical evolution of security paradigms, and secondly, the main ideas and positions of liberalism or realism supporters. In the case it is important to understand the processes and evolution of security perceptive and studies. Many historical events played their role in the development of people’s opinion and perception of the security. The main changes in the modern 1 European Comission project. (2007, February 15). Notions of security. Shifting concepts and perspectives. Retrieved from www.transnationalterrorism.eu. 4 understanding of the security happened after two World Wars, Cold War and the fall of the USSR. Those events in the history made people and scholars over think the classical concepts of security in case to find a peaceful solution for co-existence. The evolution and transformation of the world system after WW2 and the end of Cold War gave new waves for old concepts and perceptions of the international security to the world society. The importance of security studies arises from several reasons. Contemporary developments in science and technologies, military strategy and particular in nuclear field brought the international society to the point when there is no more possibility to live with old rules of security. New military technologies such as anti-satellite systems, laser and long- range cruise missiles are significant altering the composition of the military relations among nations. In addition to those military development processes, there are new challenges to a global politics and economics. Economical crises, environmental issues, new centers of economical power, war for resources, over population, international terrorism, human and drug trafficking. New actors are arising on the world arena and brought new issues and new ways of resolving problems. New threats also can provide a new ways and initiative for new means of attaining security. As I have already mentioned before it is impossible to maintain peace without knowing the history. History of development of security concepts is not less important than contemporary security studies because old conceptions are a base for a new one. Just knowing them, we can consider ourselves fully prepared to learn and apply new concepts of security. 1. 1. Realism First of all it is important to mention the oldest and dominant paradigm of security which based on Realistic approach towards international relations - “balance of power”. Many scholars are recognizing the importance of that concept of security and international relations studies. The concept of a balance of power is considered as one of the oldest and fundamental concept in the field of international relations. Hans Morgenthau called a balance of power as “an iron law of politics” and Henry Kissinger, regarded a balance of power as more an art than a science. 2 In that part I will mention the most significant members of the Realist school and will try to explain how a realist sees the way of keeping our world secure from wars and conflicts. 2 Paul, W. a. (2004). Balance of power, theory and practice in twenty first century. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 5 Classical realism recognizes the central role of power in politics of all kinds, but also limitation of power and the ways in which it can be readily made self defeating. It stresses sensitivity to ethical dilemmas and the practical implications and the need to base influence, wherever possible, on shared interests and persuasion.3 Below I will shortly mention the most significant contributors to classical Realism school of thinking in the chronological order. The first mention of the realistic approach leads us to Ancient Greece where Thucydides wrote his famous book “History of the Peloponnesian War”, and one of the first who explains the international relations through realistic approach- a balance of power and security. Thucydides told us about the Peloponnesian War between Athenians and Spartans, and tried to explain security dilemmas between two city states and the war between them as a result.4 The next significant contributor to Realism Theory is Niccolo Machiavelli. His book “Prince” is a “handbook” for a successful ruler of the state, which will be able to provide the security of the state and its citizens. The leading topic of the book- is power, power of the Prince, preserving power for the order inside the state. Power is the most dominant aspect of Machiavelli’s theory and it should come first for a safe, united princedom. Power is the first and the absolute condition of security.5 “From this arises the following question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both”6 Machiavelli focused not only on internal security issues but also on the safe co-existence with other “princedoms.” A further key figure in the development of Realist idea is Hans Morgenthau. As one of the most famous scholars who is supporting the idea of classical realism, Morgenthau gave a lot to the political theories and international relation studies. In his book “Politics among Nations” he wrote that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power". Morgenthau 3 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press. 4 Crane, G. (1998). Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity:The Limits of Political Realism. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS. 5 Örmeci, O. (2010). Niccolo Machiavelli and Political Realism 6 Machiavelli, N. (1994). “The Prince”. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. 6 emphasized the importance of "the national interest".7 As well his “Six principles of Political realism” occupy an important place in the development of the theory. The principles, paraphrased, are: 1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. 2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power, which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism avoids concerns with the motives and ideology of statesmen. Political realism avoids reinterpreting reality to fit the policy. A good foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. 3. Realism recognizes that the determining kind of interest varies depending on the political and cultural context in which foreign policy is made. It does not give "interest defined as power" a meaning that is fixed once and for all. 4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirements of a successful political action. Realism maintains that universal moral principles must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of the time and place, because they cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation. 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. 6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; he asks "How does this policy affect the power and interests of the nation?" Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. The political realist must show where the nation's interests differ from the moralistic and legalistic viewpoints.8 Talking about modern times we should mention for sure Kenneth Waltz. His role in the development of political theories is very important. We can call him a founder father of the neorealistic school of thinking. A key contribution of Waltz to political science is a creation of neorealism (or structural realism). That theory claims that the actions of states can often be 7 Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,. 8 Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,. 7 explained by the pressure exerted on them by the international rivalry that limits and restricts their choice. Neo realism thus aims to explain why people are repeating the patterns of behavior, such as why the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union reminds Sparta and Athens relationship.9 Each of the mentioned authors are more or less have their own ways of presenting the realist theory. But there are still more in common than differences; the main ideas and perceptions of how the world system is working is what they have in common. Their writings are concerned with matters of order, justice, and change at the domestic, regional, and international levels. Classical realism has holistic understanding of politics that stress the similarities, not the differences, between domestic and international politics, and the role of ethics and community in promoting stability in both domains.10 That is why it was important to mention them. Now when the main ideas of a realist theory is clear for us, the power is in the center of the international relations, as the main factor which defines peace or war, we should go closer to our main question: how, in realistic opinion, the worlds can stay secure? The core meaning of the balance of power concept is the idea that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed, so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others. If one state gains inordinate power, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition.11 Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would appear unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions. When confronted by a significant external threat, states may balance or bandwagon. Balancing is defined as allying with others against the prevailing threat, whereas bandwagon refers to alignment with the source of danger.12 At the beginning the term security was perceived by realist just as “national security”, which means the protection of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the independence and security of the 9 Конышев, В. (2010). АМЕРИКАНСКИЙ НЕОРЕАЛИЗМ О ПРОБЛЕМЕ СУВЕРЕНИТЕТА. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from Политическая экспертиза: http://www.politex.info/content/view/760/30/ 10 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press 11 Kegley, C. W., & Wittkopf, E. R. (2005). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.) , 503. 12 8 Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University Press population and their values. 13 In its turn realistic approach is more than others national security based, and the main point for a realist is a power of the state, and its ability to protect its nationals. The idea of the balance of power concept is that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.14 The military capabilities and power of alliances is a very foundation of the security in the eyes of realists. Classical realists are recognizing the military power and alliances as double edged swords; they are as likely to provoke as to prevent conflict.15 Now we can mention again Thucyclides and his “History of Peloponnesian War” where without any doubts we can see Athenian efforts to obtain a favorable balance of power was an instrument cause of war. Thucyclides provides a single example of an alliance that meant war, and by the logic of the balance of power some of them should have.16 For Morgenthau the balance of power was a social phenomenon which can be found on each level of a social interaction. Individuals, groups, and states are combined to protect themselves. An international level phenomenon of the balance of power had contradictory implications for peace. It might deter war if status quo powers outgun imperialist challengers and demonstrate their resolve to go to war in defense of the status quo. But balancing could also intensify tensions and make war more likely because of impossibility of assessing with any certainty the motives, capability.17 Those two prominent representatives of the Realist school of thinking let us clearly see that a classical realist understands politics as a struggle for power. There is not a big difference between domestic and international politics for them. In the same time, as was said before, in the eyes of realists military capabilities are not always a safeguard of the state and can’t be guaranty of the preserving peace, order (domestic and international) based on the strength of community. When states are bounded with each other by a common culture, conventions and personal ties, the competition for power was restrained in its ends and means. Under such conditions, a balance 13 Romm, J. J. (1993). Defining national security : the nonmilitary aspects. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press. 14 Kegley, C. W., & Wittkopf, E. R. (2005). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.) , 503. 15 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press 16 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press 17 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press 9 of power might prevent some wars. As Morgenthau recognized, the balance of power works the best when needed the least.18 1.2 Liberalism The aim of this part is to present a short overview of Liberalist way of thinking. Then I will mention the most prominent representatives of that school, and later I will try to find out what is a security concept of Liberalist school. It is important to mention in the beginning, that there are several varieties of liberal approaches towards international relations (such as constructivism, rationalism). In that part will be mentioned just a general overview of Liberal thought. Since forever Liberal theory and Realist school of thinking are in confrontation two sides of criticism and differences in the perception of international relations reality made them two be opposed. Liberals opposed to realists rejecting the perception of society as a “jungle”, liberals see world politics as a cultivable “garden”, which combines the state of war with the possibility of a “state of peace”.19 All the classical liberal theories of international relations rest on the core assumption that domestic actors or structures strongly influence the foreign policy identities and interests of a state as well as their actual behavior in international relations. Liberal approaches consider domestic properties as crucial explanatory variables.20 But there are a few more core concepts which have been keeping the liberalists together since the Cold war: States are the primary actors in the international system, but they are not unitary—domestic politics matters; there are some factors beyond capabilities that constrain state behavior; and states’ interests are multiple and changing. The key concepts found in liberal theory are absolute gains, international institutions, free trade, and democracy. International law is also important in liberal IR theory as it is seen as forming a major constraint on the state behavior. 21 18 Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press 19 Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W.W. Norton. 20 Panke, D., & Risse, T. (2007). Liberalism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurke, & S. Smith, International Relations Theories: Discipline and diversity (pp. 90-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21 Crystol, J. (2013). Liberalism. Retrieved may 26, 2013, from Oxford Bibliographies: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0060.xml 10 The first liberal ideas mentioned in the works of the different philosophers from all over the world: such as Laozi (China, 6th century BCE), is the author of the classic Chinese text, the Tao Te Ching, and the founder of Taoist philosophy. A common theme that runs throughout the Tao Te Ching is that the ruler should not meddle with society; instead, the people should be left to their own devices.22 Aristotle (Athens, 384 BC - 322 BC) is revered among political theorists for his seminal work “Politics”. He made invaluable contributions to liberal theory through his observations on different forms of government and the nature of a man etc. Liberal thought was developing during the centuries. In the early modern times we should notice John Locke's (England, 1632– 1704) notion that a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights— life, liberty, and estate (property) as well as tolerance, laid down in A letter concerning toleration and Two treatises of government had an enormous influence on the development of liberalism. The theory of property developed resting on the actions of individuals rather than on descent or nobility.23 One of the main and maybe the most important assumption of the liberal theory is that democratic states keep the peace among each other. This preposition can bring us back to eighteen century, to German philosopher and, maybe one of the main “heads” of the liberal theory- Immanuel Kant. In his famous work “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” he said:” If the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future.”24 To sum up the main liberal ideas we could say that Classical liberal way of thinking is an elected decision maker, who is responsible for foreign policy as well, he identifies the importance of 22 Legge, J. (. (1995). Loazi . Project Gutenberg Grant, R. W. (1991). John Locke's Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 24 Kant, I. (2010). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch(1795). Philadelphia: Slought Foundation, Philadelphia and the Syracuse University Humanities Center 23 11 domestic and politics for international behavior of states, the common core of all kinds of liberal theories.25 Table 1: Realism versus Liberalism26 Realism Main theoretical proposition Liberalism Self-interested states compete Political constantly for power or and consideration economical overweight security concern for power Highest virtue Power; Security Peace; freedom Main units of analysis States States; non-state actors Key instruments Force, principally military; Varies( spread of democratic diplomacy values; international organizations; economic exchange) Relations with other states International anarchy; balance Varies(international of power; accidental alliances institutions; cooperation between democracies) Main threat to (national) External military threat Non-democratic regimes security Talking about The Liberal theory of security management, we should mention two key methods: collective security and arms control, as well as Democratic Peace Theory. 25 Panke, D., & Risse, T. (2007). Liberalism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurke, & S. Smith, International Relations Theories: Discipline and diversity (pp. 90-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press 26 Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: P. D. William. 12 1.3 Concept of collective security Liberalist believes the collective security is as protective actions of allied states. When one of the allies is under the threat from some other state, then other ally states are unifying in order to support. The goal is to prevent aggression during the period of establishment of the international security. People can describe it as “One for all, all for one” concept. There are several principles to prevent aggressors from acting unlawful towards others: Prevention: If war can’t be stopped, then all the unified states are participating in active military restraint. Gridlock: Possible aggressor-states must be known by the global community and set a direct stop on their unlawful actions. Restrain: united states are rational, whereas aggressors are unlawful. It is the job of the right to correct. Deterrence: Aggressors states got an aware message from a global community, and were disapproved of their actions.27 1.4 Arms Control Arms control is described by the controlling, dropping off, limiting, or abolishing weapons wholly. According to Liberal theory, arms proliferation can be reduced. Fewer weapons is less insecurity, as long as states mutually agreed on.28 1.5 Democratic Peace Theory Liberalists school of thinking is also famous with its “Democratic Peace theory”. Expressed firstly by Immanuel Kant who hypothesized in his legendary 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace” that a world comprised of constitutional republics was one of the several conditions necessary for creating a perpetual peace.29 Recently, researchers of international affairs increasingly began to use "democratic peace theory. Its main points: the interconnections (the highest form of which is 27 Kupchan, C. A., & Kupchan, C. A. (1995). The Promise of Collective Security. International Security , 52-61. Larsen, J. A. (2002). Arms Control:Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 28 29 Cramer-Flood, E. (2008). Good Theory, Bad Policy: A study of the Democratic Peace Theory and its implications for the war on terror. PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL ISSUES , Fall 2008 13 the globalization) and democracy facilitate cooperation between the states, the rules and principles of democracy are universal and do not depend on religious, ethnic, historical, etc. conditions.30 According to that theory democratic states does not go to the war with each other’s and to resolve existing differences peacefully. In the West, this theory is traditional among the liberal establishment. Through the words of the American political scientist Jack Levy proponents of this view even ventured to declare that the hypothesis of democratic peace is actually acquired the status of law in the social sciences.31 As a result of the massive effort to promote it "democratic peace theory" has become one of the most important tenets of the doctrine of liberal interventionism of the United States. 1.6 Security Policies Together with theoretical security concepts it is important to mention in that part the security policies. There is no clear line between security concept and security policies, and it is not necessary to define them in the context of that work. In that meaning security policies mean to promote security. I will speak about “equal security” and “neutrality” as a policy to promote peace.32 Equal security policy is a principle for bilateral arms negotiation that parties may agree upon. As an example we can use the joint communiqué issued on May 29, 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union.33 Two sides declare their intentions to limit strategic offensive arms and “to conduct them (their negotiations) in a spirit of goodwill, respect for each other’s legitimate interests and observance of the principle of equal security”. 34 This principle is embracing the notion that neither state has a right for exclusivity or any special privileges or advantages. Next security policy I would like to mention here is “Neutrality”. It is a principle to stay out of military alliances, and during the war it is time to stay out of conflicts. Neutrality is more popular among European states. During the history of Europe there was always a conflict between East and West. Neutrality, before, understood just as a position during the war time, but war time and peace time are much interconnected. Because of its dependency (anyway) from the military 30 Levy, J. (1989). "Domestic Politics and War." . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31 Levy, J. (1989). "Domestic Politics and War." . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 32 United Nations. (1986). Concepts of Security. New York: United Nations Publications. 33 United Nations. (1986). Concepts of Security. New York: United Nations Publications. 34 Mayall, J., & Navari, C. (1980). The End of the Post-War Era: Documents on Great-Power Relations 1968-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 14 alliances, Neutral states are able to contribute substantially to reducing international tensions and antagonism in their regions on a large scale. Through the United Nations and other international forums, neutral states have taken an active part in the processes of meditation and peace-keeping. 1.7 Human security Human security concept differs from previous, it has been shifted international relations studies from military and State security to the safety of the people and communities, extension of mere existence to well-being and dignity of human beings. Human security is an emerging school of thought in the practice of security. It critiques traditional state based on the notion of security, and suggests an alternative conception of security. The supporters of that concept claim that traditional schools of International relations are no more appropriate or effective to highly interconnected and interdependent world, where there are global threats such as poverty, environmental issues, and terrorism supersede the traditional tools of security (safety). Human security supporters claim that isolationist international policy no more appropriate, states and its citizens can’t be secure if others are not, States should maintain their security by ensure the security of others. Human security includes all the points of nowadays possible security- common security, global security, cooperative and comprehensive security. That force policymakers and scholars re-thing perception of the security is not anymore just about state territory interests and its military defense.35 The most vocal supporters of the Human Security concept are Canada and Norway who are the leaders in establishing a “human security network”. The first mention of human security we can find in Human Development report, 1994 by the United Nations Development Program. “The concept of security,” the report argues, “has far too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust....Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily living.36 “Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns 35 Paris, R. (2001). Human Security:Paradigm shift or Hot Air? International Security, volume 26, issue 2 (volume 26), 87-102 36 United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. 15 of daily life—whether in homes, in jobs or in communities.”37 Together with the attempt to find out a clear definition for Human security, that report identify seven specific elements that comprise human security: (1) economic security (e.g., freedom from poverty); (2) food security (e.g., access to food); (3) health security (e.g., access to health care and protection from diseases); (4) environmental security (e.g., protection from such dangers as environmental pollution and depletion); (5) personal security (e.g., physical safety from such things as torture, war, criminal attacks, domestic violence, drug use, suicide, and even traffic accidents); (6) community security (e.g., survival of traditional cultures and ethnic groups as well as the physical security of these groups); and (7) political security (e.g., enjoyment of civil and political rights, and freedom from political oppression).38 Today, the explanation of that term and its elements, by the UNDP, 1994 remains the most cited and useful, but it also has a lot of criticism. The main points of the critiques of Human Security Concept are that they do not have a clear definition. According to UNDP definition and elements of HS it is possible to include anything under that. HS does not give a useful framework of analysis for scholars. Again, because of the lack of clarity and definition blurriness it is highly possible and easy to use Human Security, as a slogan, in the way which will suit the particular interest of concrete governments, parties, coalitions etc. According to the government of Japan, for example, the concept of human security “comprehensively covers all the measures that threaten human survival, daily life, and dignity—for example, environmental degradation, violations of human rights, transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, refugees, poverty, antipersonnel land-mines and Infectious diseases such as AIDS—and strengthens efforts to confront these threats.”39 Other states, such as Canada, have promoted a more restrictive definition of human security as “freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights, safety or lives.”40 Contemporary scholars do not want to acknowledge the Human Security as a solo concept of security, but they admit the importance of study is deeply and widely. There is a huge scope for the new dimensions of the security which should be explored, and Human security’s nebulosity 37 United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. 38 Paris, R. (2001). Human Security:Paradigm shift or Hot Air? International Security, volume 26, issue 2 (volume 26), 87-102 39 Japanese Minestry of Foreign Affairs. (1999). Japanese Minestry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from Diplomatic Bluebook: www.mofa.go.jp 40 Axworthy, L. (1997). Canada and Human Security: The need for Leadersgip. International journal (52), 183-196. 16 giving lots of possibilities for it. Below you can see the table which easily explains the main difference between Traditional Security concepts and, relatively new, Human Security concept. Table 2: Traditional versus Human Security41 Type of security Referent Responsibility Threats Traditional The state Integrity of the state Interstate war, nuclear proliferation, revolution, civil conflict Human The individual Integrity individual of the Disease, natural poverty, disaster, violence, human rights abuses, terrorism 1.8 Copenhagen school of security Copenhagen school of security can be defined as one of the critical schools in international security. Together with mentioned before Human Security concept, Copenhagen school of security endeavor to broaden the concept of security and all are to a degree critical of the ‘traditional’ conceptualization of security as the protection of the state against outside military threats. Instead, they have attempted to expand ‘security’ vertically, to allow for different referent objects – the ‘who, or what’ which is to be secured.42 41 Owen, T. ((2004)). Challenges and opportunities for defining and measuring human security. Human Rights, Human Security and Disarmament, Disarmament Forum. 3 , 15-24. 42 International Security Studies: Critical Security, Human Security and Copenhagen School Approaches;Glasencnik, Rebecca; 28 November 2012; http://bekahbblade.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/international-security-studiescritical-security-human-security-and-copenhagen-school-approaches/ 17 As long as Human security concept was explained above, it will make sense to go deeply to understand what exactly Copenhagen school is about. The Copenhagen school of security developed its own security theory, which became one of the most innovative and productive in nowadays security studies- Securitization Theory. That theory was developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Weaver, and their colleagues. The origins of that theory mostly seen in Barry Buzan’s book “People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations”, first published in 1983.43 The main point of that theory is not only “widening” of the notion and understanding of security, but also to make it “deeper”. It means to include threats beyond the narrow rubric of state and military security, and to confront the claim that this agenda must also be ‘‘deepened’’ to include the security concerns of actors ranging from individuals and sub-state groups (often now formulated under the rubric of ‘‘human security’’) to global concerns such as the environment that have often been marginalized within a traditional state-centric and military conception.44 The concept of securitization gives a fresh breath into debates between those who believed that the threats are objective (poses a real threat to international society-realist approach, power) and whose who claim that security is subjective (constructivist approach-the threat is one what is perceived as a threat). The Copenhagen school in case to step out of that debates suggest that security is rather a speech-act in which the main topic is the security threat can be socially constructed to be a threat, but not the real threat or not. The idea of speech acts has a long tradition in philosophy and refers to the idea that by saying something, something is done.45 Securitizing speech act has a special rhetorical structure: discursive process by means of which an actor claims that a referent object is existentially threatened, demands the right to take extraordinary countermeasures to deal with that the threat, and convinces an audience that rulebreaking behavior to counter the threat is justified. In short, by labeling something as “security,” an issue is dramatized as an issue of supreme priority.46 One can therefore think of securitization as the process through which no politicized (issues are not talked about) or politicized (issues are 43 Oxford Bibliographies; Securitization;Van Munster,Rens; http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0091.xml 44 Williams, Michael C.; Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics; International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 511–531 45 Balzacq, Thierry. “Constructivism and Securitization Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. Edited by Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer, 56–72. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge, 2010. 46 Oxford Bibliographies; Securitization;Van Munster,Rens; http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0091.xml 18 publicly debated) issues are elevated to security issues that need to be dealt with urgency, and that legitimate the bypassing of public debate and democratic procedures.47 Table 3: Securitization spectrum48 Copenhagen school of security thinking can be called a fusion of constructivist ideas together with realist school. It does not mean that we will find a clear constructivist/realist points in securitization theory, but if to think deeper, we will be able to see noticeable hints of two famous theories. But it not surprisingly because on the “battlefield” in between Constructivism/ Realism could be born a new ideas and concepts, it is helps. To be more concrete, I would like to give five main factors of “securitization” developed by Copenhagen school: 1. Military sector 2. Environmental sector 3. Economic sector 47 Williams, Michael C.; Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics; International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 511–531 48 Emmers (2011: 138); http://iheid.revues.org/719 19 4. Societal sector 5. Political sector From the point of view of view such distinction can be useful to see each factor with it particular referent object and threat agenda.49 Military Sector In the military sector we can define the states as an important referent object of the security, and the ruling elites as a securitizing actors, both of them are important in that context, but also it is worth to mention that they are not the only one. Buzan claims that in the situation of the weak state control by governments, or the conflict between rulers and ruled, the other referent objects can be added, nonstate referent objects such as tribes or nations. As an example Buzan says that such situation can be clearly seen on Balkans or Caucasus.50 Religion can be a potential referent object of the military security, as well as revolutionist movements for separation or unification, rebel movements, so called would-be states. Here we would consider states and ruling elites as the most important among others (in the context of military sector), because states generally command great military resources and ruling elites are the prime claimants of the legitimate right to use force.51 Military agenda can be seen as the ability of the government to preserve themselves from the external and internal threats. Barry Buzan in his book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” also explain that political legitimacy should be accepted by the rulers and ruled, as the ability of human communities to establish a good working machineres of government. 52 Here is important to mention the main concerns of the state military security- it is a domestic level, but also, according to Buzan- the regional level. The geographically environment also constitute the security complexes. Buzan claims that the military sector is the most institutionalized sector of security. Ruling elites as a securitizing actor should preserve order and peace, administration and law, territorial 49 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 50 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.52 51 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.49 52 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.50 20 integrity. In case of having an internal problems security task of the governments is mainly about their ability or dissability to maintain civil peace. Typical internal problems can be separatists, terrorist, criminal organizations or movements.53 In the Westphalia system of states and European states, governments decided that disarming of the citizens will be the important guaranter of the internal security, and the states stayed the only one legitimate power which can use force. Talking about external threats in case of military security we should know that is about the interplay between offencive and defensive capabilities of the state, but also here is plays role the perception of the capabilities of other states. The military securitization as a rule strongly focused on the states and would- be states, but also there is some possibilities are exist that other referent objects and securitizing actors will arise on the different levels of the world system( state, sub- state etc). As was mentioned before, here we will consider the state as an referent object, so state representatives will speak on the behalf of its state, but in case of security topic they more likely will use a more abstract principles such as balance of power or collective one such as civilization. But also international security organizations such as NATO or IG such as United Nations can arise as a referent object of the security, and to bring its own speech act. Than here we must say that they must share the commom understanding of hierarchy, and to have a clear rule who can speak security on the behalf of state or organization.54 Military sector is also full of other neither influential actors which are not a referent object nor securitizing actors. Functional actors which are able to influence the military or foreign policy of the state or they are strong enough to take an autonomous actions. Such subunits can be agencies of force, providers of the instruments of force (army industries). It is also possible to put Governments in that group but in the meaning as holders of military power who are usually want to preserve their position being in power. It is hard to divide government as a securitizing actor from the government as a functional member if talking about democratic regimes, but in the non democratic regimes it becomes totally clear. There are also other prominent actors who are influence on military policy of the state, such as armed services (air force, navy etc.), Defense, Finance and Foreign ministers. Also is important 53 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.50 54 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.56 21 to mention non government actors, such as arms companies and industries which can influence the government and foreign policy by employment rates, balance of payments, and production capacity. After all we can conclude that interplay of all actors and objects is making a military position and in some kind of foreign policy of the state towards other states/international actors. Also Buzan claims that the time of the global military securitization has paased and now is more about the regional security. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Cold War was ended, the international system had been changed, and of course the security perceptions were shifted from the global towards regional one. The Cold War end brought a possibility and need for the Third world states to find their own security way because during the Cold war regional security cooperation was not possible without intervention of one of the super powers. Buzan in his book define three types of development which are showing the natural process of regional security over the global one. First occurs if military threats cease to matter in international relations, in which case all of the military sector would fade into background, and the emphasis would shift to the other sectors which are more globalized. Second case if military technology becomes so advanced and cost effective that distance and geography cease to matter in the transmission of military threats, in which case the distinctive logic of regional security complex would disappear. Third occurs if the concentration of power in the international system becomes so great that the regional level either ceases to exist or ceases to matter.55 As an example it can be the ceasing of military matter in the relations between advanced industrialized democracies. Now the micro regions are more insecure than before. Conflicts between local state in some regions arise after desecuritization process (end of bipolar world). In the regions with weak undeveloped states the question about security should be much more important than in the more developed world. Environmental sector The environment as a part of security started to be studied much more lately than the other sectors. That makes it to be in its only beginning of development on the international society level. This discourse was openly mentioned on a high level just on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. In case to understand the place of the environmental sector 55 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; p.62 22 in security studies, firs of all is important to mention that this sector is a bit different from the others. In this sector is needed to be distinguishing on two agendas: political and scientific. The scientific agenda constructed outside of politics by the scientists and research institutions. Political agenda in its turn based on governmental and intergovernmental decision-making processes and public policies which deals with environmental issues.56 Those two agendas are intercommunicating through the debates and mass media, but each of them has its own function. Scientist with their researches are encourage the securitizing moves and political agenda in its turn keep up the public awareness of environmental issues, acceptance of political responsibility for dealing with this issue and political management (international cooperation). So in other words scientific agenda it is about to be a base for the environment being secure and political agenda it’s to work on environmental security issue being accepted and perceived by public as an important concern. Also, what is making environmental sector being so complicated is variety of issues it is consist of. Such as: -Disruption of ecosystem, climate change; loss of biodiversity; deforestation; pollution; depletion of the ozone layer. -Energy problems, depletion of natural resources; management disasters in particular oil transportation, nuclear energy, chemical industries. - Population problems; population growth; epidemics and poor health conditions in general; uncontrollable migrations. - Food problems; poverty; overconsumption; loss of fertile soils and water resources. - Economic problems; protection of unsustainable production modes; societal instability; structural asymmetric and inequality. -Civil strife; war related environmental damage; violence related to environmental degradation.57 Of course not all of those issues are perceived as a permanent subject to securitization. Not all of them are clearly environmental issues, but must be seen, in that sector, through the environmental lenses. 56 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.71 57 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.75 23 There are some debates, what is environmental security is exactly? Some people believes that environment as such is a referent object of environmental security (ex. Green), or the risk of losing achieved level of civilization, and to be back to the societal barbarism also can be seen as a referent object here? Barry Buzan in his book “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era” gives a definition which is the best for the Copenhagen school of security. “The environmental security is a concerns the maintenance of the local and the planetary biosphere as essential support on which all other human enterprises depend”58 According to that definitions the referent objects can be the environment itself and the relations between civilization and environment. Those two wings of that sector are conditioning each other. To be more concrete, Buzan determines three blocks of threats which are possibly can make a full but broad picture of the environmental security. 1. Threats to human civilization from the natural environment that are not caused by human activities. Such as natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanic events, meteorite strikes. 2. Threats from the human activities to the natural system or structures of the planet which may cause existential threats to civilization or its parts. Such as greenhouse gas emission, environmental exploitation by extraction, dumping or accidental destruction. 3. Threats from the human activities to the natural system or structures of the planet which do not seem to pose an existential threat (extraction of the mineral resources etc).59 Talking about actors in that sector, Buzan using a concept made by Gareth Porter and Janet Brown in their book “Global environmental politics” (1991). According to them there are a lead actors, veto actors and supporting actors. Lead actors are responsible for the effective international actions on the environment issues (can be states). In the scientific agenda lead actors would not be states, but environmental epistemic community which is study the urgency of the particular environmental issues and connect that agenda with the political elites and mass media, public. For the political agenda lead actors will be NGO’s, lobbying non government groups etc.60 Veto actors are mostly states and firms which are playing down the environmental issues. Veto actors are more or less diverse by the area of interests (chemical production companies, states in cases which are important in the particular region, oil industries etc.). 58 BUZAN,B., (1991) “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era”.2d edition;Boulder: Lynne Rienner;Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf; pp.19-20 59 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.80 60 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.77 24 Supporting actors are more likely located in the dangerous area threatened by some concrete environmental issue. Those actors are not able to become a lead actor because of the lack of resources. Also is important to mention so called functional actors. Economic functional actors (again, through the lenses of environmental security) can be transnational corporations, state firms, agricultural, chemical and nuclear industries. Those actors have a real impact on ecosystem, but they are not intending to politicize it. Other functional actors are governments, its agencies and some intergovernmental organizations. Those actors are set up the rules for the economic actors and control how well it’s followed. Those actors are creating international organizations such as UN Environmental Program and formulating an international law on environmental issues.61 After all environmental sector does not seem so clear. That sector is too complex and wide, with many referent objects and actors. So in case of analyzing of some concrete environmental issue we must to be clear with definitions, actors and referent objects of the issue. Economic sector Economic security is even more complex than environmental one. In different systems it is understood differently. For example in mercantilists and neomercantilists times economical security understood as part of national (state) security. From the liberalist perspective the state must provide politico-military security and to create factor mobility among national economies. Economical security of socialists is focus on economically weak and against economically strong units. In nowadays it is make sense to concentrate more on liberalist economic security because this way of political economy is a most popular. It is important to note, that all the sector more or less overlapping each other with the same actors in it. As an example here it can be a state, even though the roots of it coming out from the politics or military sectors. In economical sector there are plenty of referent objects. It starting from individuals, classes and states, and coming to abstract system of the global market itself. Global economy can be securitized as itself, but also as part of national economy, or the group of individuals. The interesting place in the economy sector takes firms. It can be seen as a referent object of the economical security just in two cases. First is if it have a direct effect on individuals (or town) in case it will go down. Means -loss of work placement (direct dependency of the individuals on such firm to exist). In that case individuals, local governments or trade unions are 61 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.79 25 able to proclaim a firm as a referent object of the economical security. Second case based on national interest and on the place of a firm inside the state industrial base. Here? The securitizing actor can be firm itself (ask for subsidies), local elected government officials or even state as itself. In the liberal system firms can be securitized in the circumstances of being seen as a crucial to the stability of the market system.62 On the unit level we can see state as an actor again, and in a much stronger position than, for example, firms. When security arguments are using to allow a violation of some international economic rules, it is obviously made in the interest of the state, not firms. On the sub-system and system level the referent objects are pretty much concrete. It can take form of Intergovernmental Organization, International Treaties (GATT,NAFTA), permanent organizations such as WTO or EU, or even in the meaning of abstract liberal international economic order. Such high importance level referent objects usually securitized by officials of the IGOs or by representatives (states, industry).63 To understand what is the economic threat we should determine about which referent object we are talking about. For individuals it can be just basic needs, such as water and food supply, clothing, shelter education. Firms in its turn can be in need of economic securitization in case if they threaten the economy itself. Firms do not really have any reasons to be securitized, just in the cases which were mentioned heretofore. Comparing with the individuals there is no existential question. In case of state we should note that they do have qualities necessary for securitization. Unlike from firms, which can disappear in case of an unsuccessful play, the states cannot disappear. States can be bankrupt too, but states cannot fire its citizens, and they cannot be dissolving. In liberal world, the securitizing actor of the state is a government, so it can make economical reforms in case to safe an economy. On sub-system and system level existential threat can be seen just in case if you know how that system is organized. Generally speaking, liberal international economic order challenged by anything that threatens to unravel commitments to remove border constrains on the international movements of goods, services and finance, by development of monopolies. So on sub system and system level anything what might unglue the rules and agreements that constitute its market, can be seen as a threat.64 62 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;pp.100-101 63 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.102 64 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.106 26 After all we for sure must note that actually all the economic security actors/threats are more or less affected and dependent on the other sectors, mostly military and politics. Even though liberalist trying to separate economic security from other sectors; it is only when they are placed into a wider context. But if to look deeper, we would see that there is no clear separation possible. The Economic security Agenda explains the economical security spillovers: 1. The ability of states to maintain an independent capability for mobilization is affected by the globalization of production, which gives states the choice of having lower quality, more expensive domestically produced weapons or higher quality, cheaper ones that are wholly or in part produced abroad. In the liberal international economic order, security of supply is underpinned not by indigenous control of production but by the existence of surplus production capacity and buyer’s market. 2. Much the same logic applies to concern about security of supply. The possibility of economic dependencies within the global market (particularly oil) being exploited for political ends is offset by the existence of surplus capacity in nearly all commodities as well as a buyer’s market. 3. Fears that the global market will generate more loosers than winners and with highten inequalities are not survival issue unless they undermine the provision of basic human needs. They are instead the political consequence of an economic system that requires winners and losers. 4. Fears of trade in drugs and weapons of mass destruction are sociopolitical and military security issues rather than economic ones, and fears of pollution are an environmental security issues rather than economic ones. 5. Only fears that the international economy will fell into crises are clearly economic security issue.65 Societal sector In the Societal sector, first what should be noted, is the difference between societal security and social. Social security is has a lot to do with the state, with the political security, the organization of state, its system. Social security is more about security of individuals (often in economic terms). Societal security in its turn is more about collectives, communities and their self identity. The main concept of the societal sector is identity. Societal insecurity arises if there is a threat to 65 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.116 27 the survival as a community group. Those communities can be based on the religion, cultural, racial belongings, but not often connected to the state. Also societal concept of security can be understood as “identity security”.66 In other words, societal security has not much to do with the state population; there is no concrete connection to some place or nation. Societal security is about protection of the cultural (religion, other) communities and self constructed groups which are existing inside the society. Objective factors such as language or location might be involved in the idea of the national identity, but it nevertheless remains a political and personal choice to identify with some community by emphasizing some trait in contrast to other available historical or contemporary ties. Threats to identify are always a question as the construction of something as threatening some “we”.67 The most common issues that have been viewed as a threat for the societal sector: 1. Migration. The identity of the local people will be changed by newcomers. 2. Horizontal competition. Local people will try to protect themselves (not in aggressive way) from new cultural and linguistic influence, they will change they ways to live and habits. 3. Vertical competition. Local people will stop seeing themselves as before. There is can be or integration (Yugoslavia) or secessionist- “regionalist project” (Catalonia). That will make them to choose either wider or narrower identity. 4. Depopulation. Wars, famine, natural catastrophe, or policies of extermination. Depopulation threatens identity carriers. But this case works if only is motivated by the desire to eliminate identity. In the societal sector threat is about changing people’s identity, converting them in something else they never were. Such communities have two ways to react on such threats. First is to try to make some activities by themselves or to bring this issue to some other sectors, usually political or military. Also there are possibilities for such identity carriers how to survive inside some other cultural surroundings, such as dominate the local government; form their own government or to be left alone.68 Anyway, it is always up to such societies what to see as a threat and what to do with that. 66 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.120 67 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner;p.120 68 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.122 28 In the case of societal sector referent objects nowadays will be tribes, clans, national minorities, ethnic units, religious, race and civilizations. Historically no one could tell concretely what would be a referent objects. People saw it more or less as a family linkages, villages, local regions etc. Nations often seen very close connected to the state, then references to the national identity made by person which is in a state power. Sometimes leaders made references to the national identity but also often to the state and sovereignty. Interesting, that more often the opposition powers using a national identity to point the finger on those who is in power, that they are not paying enough attention to the nation, but to the state security. So in that case references to the nation (speech act) made by opposition, not by the people of nation. There is also might be a case when the one who is making a speech act with the references to the nation, is not interested in getting into power (or separation) of the state. In all those cases there is one very powerful actor-Mass Media. Mass media by presenting a situation, by making a separation between “us” and “them” often plays a great role in the mind construction of the people, and their perception of the situation. Media putting labels on the conflict actor, as an example Serbs and Muslims. In the situation with religion, we can clearly see an example when one leader or a small group of people proclaim themselves to have a right to speak from whole group. As an example can be fundamentalists in Egypt with their securitizing rhetoric against the western culture.69 Of course all of those situations and scenarios are should be connected to the reality, to the situation which are exist. Perception of something as a threat is based on how the identity of some specific group was constructed. Buzan gives an example of Finland, where people so much not used to foreigners that even a small amount of immigrants will be seen as a threat. French identity strong tied with its language so the worldwide use of English language will be seen by French people as a threat. As a conclusion it can be noted, that identity is the main concept of the societal security, and each identity group would see its own threats dependent on its perceptions. Political sector The main point of the political security is a security of the state sovereignty. As far as military threats was discussed before in the part of Military sector security, here is makes sense to point 69 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.124 29 out that political security will be connected more to non military threats to sovereignty. From here we will discuss political security from two directions. First it goes to nonmilitary threats towards political units other then states, and second goes to defense of political referents on system level such as international law and society. According to Buzan, political sector is hard to separate from all the other sectors. He claims that actually all the sectors are political- political societal security, political economic security etc. So he made a distinction: Political sector constitutes that subgroup of political threats that do not use massive military, identification, economic or environmental means. In Buzans earlier book we can find a definition of the political security given by him, which fits good for the Copenhagen school and explains more precisely what is exactly: Political threats are aimed at the organizational stability of the state. Their purpose may range from pressuring the government on particular policy, through overthrowing the government, to fomenting secessionism, and disrupting the political fabric of the state so as to weaken it prior to military attack. The idea of the state, particularly its national identity and organizing ideology, and the institution which express it are the normal target of political threats. Since the state is essential political entity, political threats may be as much feared as military ones. This is particularly so if the target is a weak state.70 Also political threats are about giving or denying recognition, support or legitimacy (ex. Situation in Ukraine and Crimea). Politics as well focused on system level referent objects such as institutions, organizations and political structures. So, political threats target either internal legitimacy or internal recognition of the political unit. Internal legitimacy based on ideology or other constitutive ideas which can be threatened from outside as well as from inside, and external recognition in its turn is external legitimacy. In our modern time external recognition plays a big role, and as political unrecognition can be a serious security threat. So, all the political security threats will be linked either to internal legitimacy or external recognition (legitimacy) of the political unit.71 The main referent object of the political sector is obviously the territorial state. Also other statelike organizations which sometimes can be a referent objects, such as emerging quasi super states (EU), self organized societal groups(tribes, communities, minorities and clans) which have a strong political recognition and strong political institutions, transnational movements, 70 BUZAN,B., (1991) “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era”.2d edition;Boulder: Lynne Rienner;Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf;p.118 71 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.145 30 ideological movements which also took a transnational form. The actors which can securitize those objects are well defined. State has a leader (even EU have formal institutions). In the case of state usually it is a government who will be a securitizing actor. Transnational movements’ normally also have a leader which is located in some concrete official place. In systemic referent objects appeals can be made about the survival of the unit- “our unit”, but security structured questions can be also turned towards institutions, structures in the international system, and so on. Stability issues can be referring on the stability of the participating units or in relations among those units. So, collective institutions can stabilize units individually or they can serve to stabilize something larger. As an example we can take the United Nations Security Council, it is stabilize not only on the international level but also in some domestic situations it plays its important role. There are many small states which would not exist without proper help of the United Nations.72 In the conclusion it will make sense to formulate how all those security sectors are working on the different levels of analysis. Table 4: Securitization at different levels of analysis73 Dynamics/sector Military Environment Economic Societal Political Global ** **** **** ** *** Non regional ** ** ** ** * Regional **** *** *** **** **** Local *** **** ** *** ** sub-systemic ****-dominant securitization;***-subdominant securitization; **- minor securitization; *-no securitization. Part 2: Syria case Syrian case, from mine point of view, is good to be chosen for the practical part of this work because in the situation which happening in this country we can see almost all the actors of international security today, and also we can analyze their actions and inter actions, we can see 72 72 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.147 73 73 BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;p.165 31 how effective the international security system today and what kind of function in the securitizing process each of the actors are perform. The structure of the analytical part will be following. Firstly I would like to mention general situation in the Arab world concerned with so called Arab Spring movements in Northern Africa and Middle East countries. After to go deeper into actual Syrian situation and will proclaim the main international security actors which are important for us in case of Syria to analyze international security. For this part of analysis I would like to use Copenhagen school of Security (which was described before) to make the analysis more structured. After all the positions of the actors will be defined I will try to find out what kind of events made by international society was (or not) effective, and if anyhow nowadays security system is functional or not. But before that I would like to give a clear notion what are non state threats exactly. Non state actors can range from the peaceful organizations such as different Nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) and Multinational corporations to political motivated aggressive organization fighting against some certain policies or rulers. In case of this thesis it does make sense to focus only on the second kind of organizations because of the possible threat from them. So nongovernmental groups which are supporting (directly or indirectly) combat anti governmental groups can be considered as a non state threat. That what is exactly we will see in the case of Syrian civil war. International law has few mechanisms how to deal with such groups, that is why we will discuss the actions taken by United Nations in case to preserve peace on the Syrian territory. 2.1 Pre story The Arab Spring is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that began in the Arab world December 18, 2010, situation which swept the region of Middle East and North Africa. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, civil war in Libya and in Syria ( ongoing); civil uprising in Bahrain, mass protests in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco and Oman, and less significant protests in Kuwait , Lebanon , Mauritania, Saudi Arabia , Sudan , Djibouti and Western Sahara . A series of protests and demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa has become known as the "Arab Spring ". Chronologically, it started with protests in Western Sahara in October 2010, but in fact, it started with protests in Tunisia on 17th of December 2010 when one men in case to protest against police corruption and bad treatment which he got in prison burned himself publicly. With the success of the protests in Tunisia, a wave of instability struck to Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and 32 Yemen, and then spread to other countries. Main ideas of such riots and demonstrations were against current political system in those countries. People went to the streets to say out loud about their need in change to democracy. Unhappiness with the government can be classified as a political security question. As we know from the previous part and from the definition given by Barry Buzan is that political threats are aimed at the organizational stability of the state. Their purpose may range from pressuring the government on particular policy, through overthrowing the government, to fomenting secessionism, and disrupting the political fabric of the state so as to weaken it prior to military attack.74 So in case of Arab Spring, people of the countries made a threat to political security of the state by their protests against current government. It is obvious that the main threat in case of Arab Spring, and Syria in particular pointed on Political Sector of security. Not less important a Societal sector of security in the region in general and in each state in particular. Clashes between different ethnic groups, and groups of believers in different future of the state, refugees and civil victims- all that making Arab Spring being a business not for only one state but for the whole world as well. Unbelievable bloody and brutal riots brought changes to some countries and led to overthrowing of the four heads of states. Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia on January 14 after the revolution. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak resigned on 11 February 2011 after 18 days of massive protests, ending his 30 -year presidency. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown by August 23, 2011, when the National Transitional Council took control of the Bab al- Azizia . He was killed on October 20, 2011 in his hometown of Sirte. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, on February 27, 2012 finally left his post. Such protest and geopolitical implications could not be left out from the global society attention. International organizations, nongovernmental organizations and even single states tried to find a peaceful way of solving problems of the people of fighting territories. Here of course we should mention the most prominent international organization- United Nations. Exactly on that organization people of the world had put the hope for the peaceful conflict resolutions. Further to be more concrete with the examples of United Nations possible actions in case to prevent or even solve such conflicts I would like to use an example of Syrian case. . 2.2 Syria case 74 BUZAN,B., (1991) “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era”.2d edition;Boulder: Lynne Rienner;Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf;p.118 33 As was mentioned before, after Arab Spring had started and it went over one country by one in the region, Syria did not make it to stay out of it. Political struggle is ongoing inside Syria since its get independency, but the difference with the nowadays situation is that now the conflict is involves not only certain political groups but also the masses, normal people and the international society. Here it is important to mention main actors which are presented in the situation more precisely. First of all it is internal actors, such as president of Syria Bashar Assad and the opposition. Important to mention is that the government of Assad is mostly alawites, which are a religious group and also part of Shia Islam. Opposition is mostly Sunni. So we can see that the base for the conflict is not only political but also ethnical. Of course it won’t be right to claim that all the Sunnites are against the regime, but we should not ignore this point. Going further we can see the interest of the neighbors of Syria to keep this country in peace. Here is the most prominent actor is League of Arab Nations. The destabilization of the situation in the region would not be beneficial not for any of the member of this organization. The League of Arab Nations is an organization that consists of independent Arab States on the territory of northern and north-eastern part of Africa and southwest Asia. Representatives of the first six member states – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia – that initiated the league’s formation signed the agreement in Cairo, on March 22, 1945. According to the Arab League’s main document, Charter of Arab League, the organization’s main goal is “strengthening of the relations between the member-states, the coordination of their policies in order to achieve co-operation between them and to safeguard their independence and sovereignty; and a general concern with the affairs and interests of the Arab countries.“ These affairs and interests include all important economic issues, including finances, commerce, business, currency, etc. They also include social, cultural and health affairs, communication, transport, travel, the question of nationality, visas and passports, and similar.75 So here we can see the interest of this regional cooperation in keeping its members out of wars and internal conflict because it will affect other members of the organization. The last but not least important organization it is of course United Nations. The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The UN has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain 75 ARAB LEAGUE ONLINE; Presentation of Arab League ( 13 of September 2013); web resource: http://www.arableagueonline.org/hello-world/ ; visited on 18 of April 2014 34 resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (for promoting international economic and social co-operation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (inactive since 1994).UN System agencies include the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, UNESCO, and UNICEF. The UN's most prominent officer is the SecretaryGeneral, an office held by South Korean Ban Ki-moon since 2007. 76 In the situation of Syrian conflict our attention will be focused on the work of the United Nations Security Council. As the topic of this thesis is “International security cooperation against non state threats” so it does make sense to concentrate our attention on cooperation of the global society under the United Nations Security council. Before we will discuss how the conflict in Syria had started, how it was developing and which actions was taken by international society, I would like to clarify what kind of non state threats are should be notice here. As we know now in the era of globalization the whole world is much interconnected in each sphere of life. The conflict in Syria can be called as “spillover” from the other neighboring states. History already knows such examples: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – FARC expanding from Colombia to Ecuador and Venezuela; al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Kosovo Liberation Army – KLA in Albania and Macedonia.77 After such “spillover” happened the other non state threats are coming out. Terrorist groups are activating its representatives on the territory of unstable state, the internal conflicts between ethnic groups, inability of the current government to carry out the protests and other armed sub groups. All that bringing a chaos into the state, region and world. So in this case international society must to do something to help to solve a problem. In my opinion, in case of Syria we can clearly see, according to Copenhagen school of Security, a political- societal insecurity inside the state. As was mentioned before, the inability of the Assad alawite regime to keep in peace the territory brought it into war with Sunnite opposition. It is not just a political instability but also societal- two ethnic groups are about to destroy each other. 76 United Nations web site; history of the United Nations; web recourse: https://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/; visited on 18 of April ,2014 77 Zugravu, C. Andrea; Romanian military thinking; “Non state threats and the new security paradigm”; January 2010; web recourse: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/~/media/Fletcher/News%20and%20Media/2010/May/OpEd/Zugravu%2005%2010.pdf 35 After we clarify the main actors and the main threats it is time to see what kind of problems Syria have, and how the United Nations was trying to solve it. First who started to claim the need of Syrian people beings is insecure in their own country from the political regime –it was young people through social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite the limitation of using such internet services by the Syrian Government some people were still able to organize so called “Days of Rage” on 5th and 6th of February 2011. Also on Facebook pages people could see for what they are going to stand. There were published main basic requirements of demonstrates, such as to improve living standards, human rights and freedom of speech for all people of Syria.78 From the point of view of Copenhagen school of security the anti government protests in Syria started by civilians (securitized actor) to have political security inside the country. As we can see on the Table 4 when the situation in region is unstable- political security has dominant importance. So in other words people of Syria by pronouncing an insecurity of political system became a threat for the government as an institution. From 10th of March 2011 the people of Syria started active protests all over the country. First victims were killed (5 protesters) in the city of Daraa. After several days of protests more people were killed by the government forces in case to suppress demonstrations. Finally international society decides to react on it in the day of March, 26. According to “Guardian” the United Nations general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, urged Assad to show "maximum restraint", while the United States said it was deeply concerned by "the Syrian government's attempts to repress and intimidate demonstrators".79 Obviously Assad somehow was sure about his power and ignored the advice of UN and USA what led to new demonstrations and victims. Further events are permanently accompanied by armed clashes with the police forces and the army: UN Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called on the Syrian government to carry out an independent investigation into the actions of the police and army, condemned the “unacceptable " actions of the Syrian government and the EU. Here we can see how a new actors joining, such as EU, USA and of course United Nations. Why are they here? As was mentioned before the main referent object is a territorial state, but here we can see that referent objects are EU (quasi 78 Yehoshua Y. The Middle East Crisis Part III - Syrian Facebook Pages Calling for Demonstrations on Saturday, February 5, 2011 / Y. Yehoshua // The Middle East Media Research Institute. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4957.htm#_edn4 (24.02.2013) 79 Katherine Marsh, Tom Finn and Martin Chulov/The Observer, Saturday 26 March 2011; Syria protests continue amid increased international condemnation of regime;The hardline government has been left reeling by fresh clashes on the streets and criticism from the UN and the US; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/26/syria-protests-continue-international-condemnation 36 super state), USA- super power and United Nations- great institution with a great international recognition. So those actors are able to hear a speech act of Syrian people and take some actions to secure them. Ongoing protests led not only United Nations and USA as a super power to take an action but also brought attention from League of Arab Nations and Russia. Important to mention that all those actors were cooperating under United Nations Security Council, so in this work I will describe cooperation of them in the context of the UNSC. The most active actions started after using of chemical weapons was detected on the territory of Syria. Syria is a member of the NonProliferation Treaty and maintains its own peaceful nuclear program. At the same time, Syria was the one of the seven states that has not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 1993, and until recent times government officially denied the existence of chemical weapons in their arsenals. For the first time the Syrian government officially pronounced the existence of the countries chemical and biological weapons just in July 23, 2012. On the contrary to the international society opinion, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez noting in the support of Assad, that Syria has become a new target of imperialism and riots began because of external provocation. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a straightforward statement that the U.S. will not go to Syria on the Libyan scenario; calling on Bashar al-Assad to start reforms immediately. It should be noted that in an effort to pacify people, the ruling forces fulfilled one of the requirements of the first «Days of Rage" - by the end of March 2011 government had released 260 political prisoners, most of whom belonged to the «Muslim brotherhood." At the same time under the pressure of mass protests Bashar al-Assad accepted the resignation of the government80 . Thus, we have a situation in the country which struggle not only for freedom of speech and political life but also for abolition of censorship and for the interests of certain groups - ethnic, religious, and here we can speak about societal security. As we discussed before, societal security had to deal with identity questions. Syria full of different ethnic groups such Levantine people, closely related to their immediate neighbors, like Lebanese people, Palestinians, Israelis, Iraqis, Maltese and Jordanians,Christian SyriacAramaic people and Assyrians and many others ethnic groups. Some of them are threaded badly 80 The Syrian leader has not met expectations : emergency legislation remains in force / "newsru.com". - [ Electronic resource]. Mode of access : http://newsru.com/world/30mar2011/asad.html ( accessed : 22.02.2013 ) 37 in Syria, some of them are perceived as elites. The question of ethnic belonging is always was a painful point in the Middle East. Besides all the reactions from the international society and any threats of sanctions from outside there were still regular news about marches, the use of violence on both sides (government versus protesters), Iran's sponsorship of the Islamist movement in Syria, on refugee flows , the terrorist attacks , on the captive journalists , etc. But what can international society do with that? And what was done already? Russian Federation was one of the first international actors who (and member of the UN) expressed the opinion, that the time has come to end up the violence and find a peaceful way to resolve problems. Soon UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. President Barack Obama were condemning the use of force against peaceful protesters. Those actions by President Obama and Ban Ki-moon can be seen as a speech act which kind of officially pronounces a political insecurity inside Syria. Also, some deputies inside Syria announced their resignation in protest against the violence during the suppression of anti-government demonstrations by military and intelligence agencies. United Nations in its turn took several actions in case to solve Syrian conflict. Firstly United Nations Council on Human Rights on 29 of April 2011 voted for a mission to be sent to Syria to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law and crimes committed against civilians in the Middle East country, where hundreds of people have been killed during weeks of unrest. Condemning the use of deadly violence against peaceful demonstrators and the “hindrance of access to medical treatment,” the Council urged the Syrian Government to protect civilians and respect fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression and assembly. It also called for the restoration of access to the Internet and other communication networks, the lifting of media censorship and to allow foreign journalists into the country. In the resolution supported by 26 of the Council’s 47 Member States, the Geneva-based panel requested that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights dispatch a mission to Syria to investigate alleged violations. Nine Member States voted against the resolution, seven abstained and four were absent. The Council “calls upon the Syrian Government to cooperate fully with and grant access to personnel from the mission dispatched by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,” the text said. It deeply regretted the deaths of hundreds of people in the ongoing political protests and voiced grave concern over the alleged deliberate killings, arrests and incidents of torture of 38 demonstrators by the Syrian authorities. The Council called upon authorities to immediately free all prisoners of conscience and people arbitrarily detained, including those held before the recent events, and called for an end to intimidation, persecution and arbitrary arrests of lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists.81 After that during few next month’s UN Council for Human right tried to call Syrian government to stop violence among civilians for several times. Such as on 9th of June the United Nations human rights chief Navy Pillay in her news release said : “We are receiving an increasing number of alarming reports pointing to the Syrian Government’s continuing efforts to ruthlessly crush civilian protests,” Pillay said. “It is utterly deplorable for any government to attempt to bludgeon its population into submission, using tanks, artillery and snipers,” she added. “I urge the Government to halt this assault on its own people’s most fundamental human rights.” “NGOs and others are now reporting that the number of men, women and children killed since the protests began in March has exceeded 1,100, with up to 10,000 or more detained,” 82 On 9 of August The UN General Assembly approved a resolution suggested by the League of Arab States by a majority of votes, condemning the Syrian government for the use of tanks, artillery, helicopters and aircraft to suppress uprisings in Damascus. The document was adopted with the support of 133 member countries of the General Assembly. 12 delegations voted against, 31 abstained. It is known that the resolution was not supported by Russia , China , Iran , Belarus , Burma , Zimbabwe , North Korea , Cuba , Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia , as well as Syria . The resolution condemns the UN Security Council for what they have not yet agreed on measures condemning the actions of the ruling regime in Syria. It calls for the beginning of political reforms in Syria, as well as the claim that the Syrian authorities were stored chemical and biological weapons in warehouses under strict control. In addition, the paper supports the requirement of the former UN Special Envoy and the Arab League to Syria, Kofi Annan that is 81 UN News Center; “UN Human Rights Council calls for investigation into alleged abuses in Syria”; 29 April,2011; web source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38237&Cr=syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0 VZJvl5NyU 82 United Nations Human Rights; GENEVA (9 June 2011); Pillay urges Syria to halt its assault on its own people; web resource: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11127&LangID=E 39 the government troops who should first stop the fire, and calls on the authorities to fulfill their obligation to stop using heavy weapons and soldiers to return to barracks.83 Mister Kofi Annan proposed to the Government of Syria «six-point plan» for a peaceful settlement of the conflict: the Syrian authorities must cooperate with the proposed UN special envoy. Secondly, the plan calls for stop fighting and seek an end to violence in all its forms and all parties must stop the transfer of troops. The third paragraph refers to ensure humanitarian access to all areas affected by the fighting. The fourth paragraph urges greater pace and scale release arbitrarily detained persons. The fifth paragraph contains an appeal to ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists, and the sixth - undertake to respect the freedom of association and the right to peaceful demonstration. On 23rd of August 2011 the top United Nations human rights body called for an immediate end to all violence in Syria and decided to dispatch an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate alleged abuses committed during the Government’s crackdown on protesters. In a resolution adopted at the end of a two-day special session, the Geneva-based Human Rights Council also strongly condemned the “continued grave and systematic human rights violations by the Syrian authorities.” By a vote of 33 in favor to 4 against, with 9 abstentions, the 47-member Council also welcomed the report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which UN human rights chief Navi Pillay presented day before, and expressed profound concern about its findings. The report, which covered the period from 15 March to 15 July, outlined a litany of Government abuses ranging from murder, enforced disappearances, deprivation of liberty and the torture even of children to an apparent “shoot-to-kill” policy against protesters with snipers posted on rooftops. As many as 2,000 Syrians have been killed in the past five months since the start of the prodemocracy protests, which are part of a broader uprising across North Africa and the Middle East that has led to the toppling of long-standing regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and conflict in Libya. A UN humanitarian team, led by Rashid Khalikov, the director of the Geneva office of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), is currently in Syria monitoring the assess to such needs as food and medicine among the civilian population. So far the team has been to Homs and Talkalakh. It also went to Naniyas, where members visited a local school, 83 UN report: Arab League draft resolution on Syria in the General Assembly; web resource:http://unreport.blogspot.cz/2012/07/arab-league-draft-resolution-on-syria.html 40 walked down the main shopping street and spoke with the local population. It is also scheduled to visit Latakia, Aleppo and Hama during the course of its mission. 84 UN Council for Human Rights was working on societal sector of security, there obviously arises a need to end up civil war inside the country not only because of death of thousands of civilians but also in case to keep the region securitized in general. On 4th of October 2011 United Nations Security Council had an urgent session to discuss the resolution on Syria prepared by European states. This resolution was blocked by Russia and China, who have used the veto power as permanent members of the UN Security Council. The project called for sanctions in case of continuation of the Syrian authorities suppress opposition in this country. The resolution was nine states voted in favor, four countries (Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa) abstained. The draft resolution prepared by France, Germany, Great Britain and Portugal has been slightly modified ( from the text have been removed requirements for immediate sanctions ) , but even after mitigating the text , Russia and China voted against. On this occasion, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "The countries that continue to supply the regime of Bashar al-Assad with the weapons which fired on innocent men, women and even children, should think hard about what they are doing. These countries took a wrong direction in terms of history. In this dispute, they do not protect those who would need to be protected. «The representative of the Russian Federation, UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the project" was not taken into account the words of the inadmissibility of external military intervention "and urged : " We propose to continue work on Russia and China project of a balanced resolution containing viable concept of the settlement . Our project is still on the table. On its basis, we are ready to produce a genuinely collective constructive position of the international community, rather than engage in legitimizing adopted unilateral sanctions and attempts to force regime change.”85 Despite any tries of International society in face of UN Council for Human Rights and UN Security Council, the numbers of victims were rising day by day. By October 14, 2011 the number of deaths raised till 3000 people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi 84 United Nations News Center; “Top UN human rights body orders inquiry into Syrian violence”; 23 rd of august, 201; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39357&Cr=Syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0 WMKfl5NyU 85 th United Nations News Center; “Russia and China veto draft Security Council resolution on Syria”; 4 of October,2011.; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39935&Cr=syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0 WO3_l5NyU 41 Pillay expressed deep dismay at the worsening human rights situation in Syria, including the “remorseless toll of human lives,” and urged the international community to take immediate measures to protect the Syrian people. “In August, I drew attention to credible allegations of crimes against humanity in Syria,” Pillay said. “At that time, I encouraged the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.” “Since the start of the uprising in Syria, the Government has consistently used excessive force to crush peaceful protests,” Pillay said. “Sniping from rooftops, and indiscriminate use of force against peaceful protestors – including the use of live ammunition and the shelling of residential neighborhoods – have become routine occurrences in many Syrian cities.” “The result,” she added, “has been a devastatingly remorseless toll of human lives. The number of people killed since the violence started in March has now exceeded 3,000, including at least 187 children. More than 100 people have been reported killed in the last 10 days alone. In addition, thousands have been arrested, detained, forcibly disappeared and tortured. Family members inside and outside the country have been targeted for harassment, intimidation, threats and beatings. As more members of the military refuse to attack civilians and change sides, the crisis is already showing worrying signs of descending into an armed struggle.” “The Government of Syria has manifestly failed to protect its population. Furthermore, it has ignored the international community’s calls to cooperate with international investigations,” the UN human rights chief said. “The onus is on all members of the international community to take protective action in a collective and decisive manner, before the continual ruthless repression and killings drive the country into a full-blown civil war,” Pillay said. “At stake are the universal rights to life, liberty and security of person which must never be brushed aside in the interests of realpolitik. The international community must speak with one voice and act to protect the Syrian people.”86 86 United Nations Human Rights; “Pillay urges united international action to protect Syrians ”; GENEVA (14 October 2011); web resource: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11493&LangID=E 42 Copyright: The Telegraph 87 February 4, 2012, Russia and China again blocked the UN Security Council resolution on Syria with using their right to veto. The draft resolution condemned all violence, no matter where it comes from, from all parties in Syria, including armed groups, was required to immediately stop the violence and settling of scores of all kinds, including attacks against state institutions. Project supported the plan for transition to a democratic political system in Syria; the Arab League proposed and demanded the Syrian authorities to help League to observer, as well as to stop the persecution of dissent. In case of failure of the proposed regulations within 21 days the UN Security Council would leave the right to consider further measures against Syria. The representative of Russia in the UN, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, that «that resolution does not reflect the realities prevailing in Syria and unbalanced signals sent by the Syrian parties. »88 87 th The Telegraph; “Why Russia veto the UN Security Council resolution on Syria?”; Crawford,Charles; 6 of February 2012; web resource: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/charlescrawford/100135155/why-did-russiaveto-the-un-security-council-resolution-on-syria/ 88 United Nations News Center; “Syria: Ban voices deep regret after Security Council fails to agree on resolution”; 4 of February, 2012; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41144&Cr=Syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0 WdYvl5NyU 43 Actually the plan of the Arab League was about the transfer of power from Syrian President Bashar Assad to Vice President Farouk Al -Shara. Within two months to form a national unity government under the leadership which will be acceptable to all sides of the conflict. Within six months Syria has to go through elections, which must be approved by Arab League and foreign observers. Should be reformed security forces, elected constituent council to write a new constitution, which must be approved on the national referendum. The plan also involves the creation of an independent commission to investigate crimes against the civilian population. What is interesting is that not Kofi Annan’s nor Arab League’s resolutions were accepted by UNSC (Russia/China veto), Syrian government and opposition did not react on it also. But after all what was find out by the United Nations missions (chemical weapons, violations of human rights etc) the international society was obliged to find one right way to stop that bloody civil war in Syria. Firstly it is obvious that people of Syria are does not have any security in those days- not political nor societal. In my opinion those two factors can be classified as non- state security threats. The threat to the political system of the country came from the inside, this threat made by people of the struggling state. It was not military attack by other state, it was not economical ban for Syria, it is a civil war which rose up from the inside. Radical opposition using different kinds of way to overthrow the current regime can be seen as a non state threat as well. Time when people of the country are ready to die for a change means that they are desperate for a freedom. Political elites of Syria were no more able to keep civilian’s life in the normal conditions- so people of Syria had no political security, which led to societal insecurity. International society in its turn tried to find a way to solve this problem with fewer victims as it possible, but when the country is in a fight, in a civil war, it is very hard to have an objective and productive work. The next steps which were taken by United Nations Security Council and United Nations Council for Human Rights were still somehow useless, and did not change the situation that much. In my opinion the most important and promised steps were done much later. To be more concrete I mean a Geneva dialogues, when international society were able to bring both sides of the conflict to the table for a objective dialogue. I did not work properly from the beginning but in my opinion, the first Geneva dialogue can be see as a first meaningful step which can bring peace into Syria. 44 2.3 1st Geneva dialogue The first international conference on Syria - " Geneva -1" - was held on 30 June 2012. It was held in the framework of the «Action Group on Syria." This structure was created at the initiative of the former Special Representative of the UN and the Arab League on Syria- Kofi Annan. To participate in the conference were invited foreign ministers of the five countries - the permanent members of the Security Council ( UNSC) - Britain , China, Russia , USA and France , as well as Turkey , Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and security Policy Catherine Ashton and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The result of the meeting was a communiqué of the «Action Group ", in which were recorded the basic principles of the conflict settlement. Among them - the establishment of a transitional governing body , which will be formed on the basis of consensus and will include members of the current government and the opposition plus other groups which are important in Syria; revising the Syrian constitution ; presidential and parliamentary elections ; formation of new government bodies. In January 2013 a new special representative of the UN and the Arab League on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi (since September 2012) proposed an amendment to the Geneva communiqué of the “Action Group”. He called the agreements which was reached at the meeting on June 30 in Switzerland, «insufficient» and urged the Security Council to "take action." On May 7, 2013, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a proposal to hold a new conference on the Syrian settlement, known as «Geneva -2." Since that time, six preparatory meetings were held on the Russia -US- UN basis. The last one was on January 13, 2014. Its follow-up head of the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern about the delay in the response of the Syrian opposition to participate in the forthcoming negotiations. January 17, 2014 Sergey Lavrov held talks in Moscow with his Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem, confirmed the intention of the government delegation to participate on the second conference on Syria –Geneva-2. Second International Conference on settlement in Syria opens January 22, 2014 in Montreux, Switzerland.89 2.4 2nd Geneva Dialogue After Geneva -1 conference communiqué was accepted by the all international actors, the next point was to bring the current government and the opposition to one table for a productive 89 United Nations News Center; Action Group for Syria , Final Communiqué ;30.06.2012; web resource: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf 45 discussion on implementation of the communiqué. The newly appointed United Nations special envoy to Syria Brahimi said in August 2013 that the main problem was getting the different groups in Syria and their different international supporters to accept the "very principle of a political solution." He said that this has been the UN approach to the Syrian civil war since the war began. Brahimi said that his main message to the Syrian parties is that there is no military solution to this devastating conflict. Only a political solution will put an end to it. And the basis for such a solution does exist. It is the Communiqué issued on 30 June 2012, after the meeting, in Geneva, of the so called 'Action Group' of countries convened at the initiative of Kofi Annan.90 On 22 January 2014 the conference started in Montreux. Foreign ministers from forty countries made statements. US Secretary of State John Kerry stated the US view that Assad is obliged to step down as part of any transitional Syrian administration: "There is no way, no way possible, that a man who has led a brutal response to his own people can regain legitimacy to govern". Syrian National Coalition leader Ahmed Jarba called on the government to immediately transfer power to a transitional authority. In response to Kerry, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem stated: “No-one in the world has the right to confer or withdraw the legitimacy of a president, a constitution or a law, except for the Syrians themselves.” He accused a number of states of supporting terrorism and deliberately attempting to destabilize Syria91 On Friday 24 January 2014, the opposing sides were supposed to hold their first face-to-face talks, in the presence of United Nations mediators. Still later on 24 January, United Nations spokeswoman, Alessandra Velluci, told a news briefing in Geneva, "This process is being shaped at the moment. It has to take time for the preparations. There are no Syrian-Syrian talks at the moment. I cannot tell you anything about what will happen in the next few days."92 The first round of talks ended on 31 January.93 The second round of negotiations took place on 10-15 February 2014, but yielded no tangible results. The two weeklong rounds have produced no actual negotiations on resolving a conflict or even what discuss and how to do so. A third 90 United Nations Department of Political Affairs; Interview with UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi; web resource: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/enewsletter/pid/24721 91 BBC; Syria Geneva II peace talks witness bitter exchanges; 22 January 2014; web resource: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25836827 92 Aljazeera; Syria Live Blog; 24th of January; web resource: http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/103000598 93 United Nations News Center; No progress to speak of’ as first round of UN-sponsored Syrian peace talks ends; 31 of January 2014; web resource: https://www.un.org/apps/news//story.asp?NewsID=47052&Cr=syria&Cr1= 46 round of negotiations was planned, though no dates were set.94 According to the UN and the Arab League on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi , the parties should think clearly what they want to say, whether they want to continue the peace process :" That little progress that has been made regarding the situation in Homs, gave people hope that it may start out of this terrible crisis . I apologize to them for the fact that during the two rounds we did not help much."95 During the conference Geneva- 2 the parties agreed on a three-day truce for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Homs and evacuation of the women and children. But even during the negotiations, according to human rights activists in Syria, about 6,000 people were killed, and since the conflict which began nearly 3 years ago - more than 140,000.96 Conclusion In this work I tried to analyze the effectiveness of such organization as United Nations in case of international security problem solving. In the first theoretical part we learned the basic schools of security thought, we could see the connections between the development of the international society and international security. Learning basic ideas of the Realism, Liberalism, Human security Concept and other liberal ways of preserving security, we went to more modern thoughts in security such as Copenhagen School of Security. As was stated in the introduction I tried to find a best theory which id reflects the non state threats the best. Following the changes in the international system, international security thought went from realism, where the power is the main point of the security, to Liberalism when people did understand that cooperation on security matter could be beneficial for everyone, and to Copenhagen School of Security where scholars tried to make security issues not only wider but also deeper (sectoral security system). I chose Copenhagen school of security because it’s one of the most modern thought on international security matters. After the theory was chosen I tried to apply it on the Syria case. The structure of the practical was firstly, in case to understand the global issue which was happening in the Middle East region we learned a pre story of the Syrian case, after that we 94 New York Times; After second on Syria talks, no agreement on even how to negotiate; By ANNE th BARNARD and NICK CUMMING-BRUCE: 15 of February 2014; web source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/world/middleeast/after-second-round-of-syria-talks-no-agreement-evenon-how-to-negotiate.html?_r=1 95 New York Times; After second on Syria talks, no agreement on even how to negotiate; By ANNE th BARNARD and NICK CUMMING-BRUCE: 15 of February 2014; web source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/world/middleeast/after-second-round-of-syria-talks-no-agreement-evenon-how-to-negotiate.html?_r=1 96 th Euronews; “Женева-2”: без прогресса”; 16 of February 2014; web resource: http://ru.euronews.com/2014/02/16/both-sides-at-a-deadlock-as-geneva-peace-talks-on-syria-end/ 47 could go further and discuss Syrian civil war more precisely. The ongoing conflict in Syria made us to see the main actions which were done by the international society to preserve peace and integrity inside the country. Arab League organizations, United Nations- are the main international actors which are responsible for such conflict resolution in the region and in the world (UN). Analyzing actions of those actors I found out that there are true believers in the United Nations project, and I do believe it should work, but in practice we can hardly see the success. Here is important to understand the importance of the peaceful situation in one state in those days of globalization. In the practical part, browsing actions of the government, opposition, and what is more important actions of the international society in the face of the United Nations organization I found out that from my point of view the Copenhagen school of security it is a way different from all the others. It does determine the actions of speech acts, securitizing actors and actors which must be securitize. It did classified threats by sectors, but it does not give a receipt how to deal with it, and it does not explain why those threats are arise. The civil war in Syria can be classified as a political- societal issue by Copenhagen School. Actors which should be solving this conflict such as United Nations and Arab League are literally unable to do it. In my opinion it is just because all those liberal tries are not counting the human nature and nature of the states. Those thought are closer to Realist theory, an as I wrote before nation states and national interest will be always on the first place, in my opinion. After all what was written before, after all actions which were taken by international society we can see that actually United Nations as a collective security project cannot be called super successful. Unfortunately national interest of each country will always be a major motivation for any actions. Also it is important to note that until Syrian opposition and Syrian current government won’t have their own will to discuss their position in a peaceful way, no one can force them anyhow. From the example of Syria we saw that United Nations were doing everything they could- warnings, threatening both sides of the conflict by sanctions, threatening of the troops invasion, economic bans etc., none of this things did work out. In the end United Nations decided that the best way to solve that conflict is to put two conflicting sides on one table. And it also did not work out yet. It is hard to say if the third round of Geneva conference will be successful, but in my opinion it is the thing to which our international security society needs to follow to. 48 References: 1. Aljazeera; Syria Live Blog; 24th of January; web resource: http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/103000598 2. ARAB LEAGUE ONLINE; Presentation of Arab League ( 13 of September 2013); web resource: http://www.arableagueonline.org/hello-world/ ; visited on 18 of April 2014 3. Axworthy, L. (1997). Canada and Human Security: The need for Leadersgip. International journal (52), 183-196. 4. Balzacq, Thierry. “Constructivism and Securitization Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. Edited by Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer, 56–72. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge, 2010. 5. BBC; Syria Geneva II peace talks witness bitter exchanges; 22 January 2014; web resource: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25836827 6. BUZAN, B., O. WÆVER, AND J. DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: 7. BUZAN,B., (1991) “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era”.2d edition;Boulder: Lynne Rienner;Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf;p.118 8. Cramer-Flood, E. (2008). Good Theory, Bad Policy: A study of the Democratic Peace Theory and its implications for the war on terror. PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL ISSUES , Fall 2008 9. Crane, G. (1998). Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity:The Limits of Political Realism. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS. 10. Crystol, J. (2013). Liberalism. Retrieved may 26, 2013, from Oxford Bibliographies: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo9780199743292-0060.xml 11. Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W.W. Norton. 12. Elman, C. (2008). Realism. Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: P. D. William. 13. Emmers (2011: 138); http://iheid.revues.org/719 14. Euronews; “Женева-2”: без прогресса”; 16th of February 2014; web resource: http://ru.euronews.com/2014/02/16/both-sides-at-a-deadlock-as-geneva-peace-talks-on-syriaend/ 49 15. European Comission project. (2007, February 15). Notions of security. Shifting concepts and perspectives. Retrieved from www.transnationalterrorism.eu. 16. Grant, R. W. (1991). John Locke's Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 17. International Security Studies: Critical Security, Human Security and Copenhagen School Approaches;Glasencnik, Rebecca; 28 November 2012; http://bekahbblade.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/international-security-studies-criticalsecurity-human-security-and-copenhagen-school-approaches/ 18. Japanese Minestry of Foreign Affairs. (1999). Japanese Minestry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from Diplomatic Bluebook: www.mofa.go.jp 19. Kant, I. (2010). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch(1795). Philadelphia: Slought Foundation, Philadelphia and the Syracuse University Humanities Center 20. Kegley, C. W., & Wittkopf, E. R. (2005). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.). World Politics: Trends and Transformation (10th ed.) , 503. 21. Kupchan, C. A., & Kupchan, C. A. (1995). The Promise of Collective Security. International Security , 52-61 22. Larsen, J. A. (2002). Arms Control:Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 23. Lebow, R. N. (2006). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith, International relations theories:Discipline and diversity (pp. 53-69). Oxford: University Oxford press. 24. Levy, J. (1989). "Domestic Politics and War." . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 25. Machiavelli, N. (1994). “The Prince”. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. 26. Marsh, Katherine, Tom Finn and Martin Chulov/The Observer, Saturday 26 March 2011; Syria protests continue amid increased international condemnation of regime;The hardline government has been left reeling by fresh clashes on the streets and criticism from the UN and the US;http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/26/syria-protests-continueinternational-condemnation 27. Mayall, J., & Navari, C. (1980). The End of the Post-War Era: Documents on Great-Power Relations 1968-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 28. Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 29. New York Times; After second on Syria talks, no agreement on even how to negotiate; By ANNE BARNARD and NICK CUMMING-BRUCE: 15th of February 2014; web source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/world/middleeast/after-second-round-of-syria-talks-noagreement-even-on-how-to-negotiate.html?_r=1 50 30. Owen, T. ((2004)). Challenges and opportunities for defining and measuring human security. Human Rights, Human Security and Disarmament, Disarmament Forum. 3 , 15-24. 31. Oxford Bibliographies; Securitization;Van Munster,Rens; http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo9780199743292-0091.xml 32. Paris, R. (2001). Human Security:Paradigm shift or Hot Air? International Security, volume 26, issue 2 (volume 26), 87-102 33. Panke, D., & Risse, T. (2007). Liberalism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurke, & S. Smith, International Relations Theories: Discipline and diversity (pp. 90-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34. Paul, W. a. (2004). Balance of power, theory and practice in twenty first century. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 35. Romm, J. J. (1993). Defining national security : the nonmilitary aspects. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press. 36. The Telegraph; “Why Russia veto the UN Security Council resolution on Syria?”; Crawford,Charles; 6th of February 2012; web resource: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/charlescrawford/100135155/why-did-russia-veto-the-unsecurity-council-resolution-on-syria/ 37. The Syrian leader has not met expectations : emergency legislation remains in force / "newsru.com". - [ Electronic resource]. Mode of access : http://newsru.com/world/30mar2011/asad.html ( accessed : 22.02.2013 ) 38. United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press 39. UN News Center; “UN Human Rights Council calls for investigation into alleged abuses in Syria”; 29 April,2011; web source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38237&Cr=syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw 2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0VZJvl5NyU 40. United Nations News Center; “Top UN human rights body orders inquiry into Syrian violence”; 23 rd of august, 201; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39357&Cr=Syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw 2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0WMKfl5NyU 41. United Nations Human Rights; GENEVA (9 June 2011); Pillay urges Syria to halt its assault on its own people; web resource: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11127&LangID= E 51 42. UN report: Arab League draft resolution on Syria in the General Assembly; web resource:http://un-report.blogspot.cz/2012/07/arab-league-draft-resolution-on-syria.html 43. United Nations News Center; “Russia and China veto draft Security Council resolution on Syria”; 4th of October,2011.; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39935&Cr=syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw 2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0WO3_l5NyU 44. United Nations Human Rights; “Pillay urges united international action to protect Syrians ”; GENEVA (14 October 2011); web resource: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11493&LangID= E 45. United Nations web site; history of the United Nations; web recourse: https://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/; visited on 18 of April ,2014 46. United Nations News Center; “Syria: Ban voices deep regret after Security Council fails to agree on resolution”; 4 of February, 2012; web resource: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41144&Cr=Syria&Cr1=&Kw1=syria&Kw 2=resolution&Kw3=#.U0WdYvl5NyU 47. United Nations News Center; Action Group for Syria , Final Communiqué ;30.06.2012; web resource: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf 48. United Nations Department of Political Affairs; Interview with UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi; web resource: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/enewsletter/pid/24721 49. United Nations News Center; No progress to speak of’ as first round of UN-sponsored Syrian peace talks ends; 31 of January 2014; web resource: https://www.un.org/apps/news//story.asp?NewsID=47052&Cr=syria&Cr1= 50. United Nations. (1986). Concepts of Security. New York: United Nations Publications. 51. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University Press 52. Williams, Michael C.; Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics; International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 511–531 53. Yehoshua Y. The Middle East Crisis Part III - Syrian Facebook Pages Calling for Demonstrations on Saturday, February 5, 2011 / Y. Yehoshua // The Middle East Media Research Institute. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4957.htm#_edn4 (24.02.2013) 54. Zugravu, C. Andrea; Romanian military thinking; “Non state threats and the new security paradigm”; January 2010; web recourse: 52 http://fletcher.tufts.edu/~/media/Fletcher/News%20and%20Media/2010/May/OpEd/Zugravu%2005%2010.pdf 55. Örmeci, O. (2010). Niccolo Machiavelli and Political Realism 56. Конышев, В. (2010). АМЕРИКАНСКИЙ НЕОРЕАЛИЗМ О ПРОБЛЕМЕ СУВЕРЕНИТЕТА. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from Политическая экспертиза: http://www.politex.info/content/view/760/30/ List of Tables: Table 1: Realism vs. Liberalism, p.8-9. Table 2: Traditional vs. Human Security, p.13. Table 3: Securitization spectrum, p.17 Table 4: Securitization at different levels of analysis, p.29 53