Security Studies Theories

Theories of Security Studies, constitute an interdisciplinary body of research that examines the phenomenon of security in its conceptual, theoretical, and practical dimensions as one of the fundamental subfields of international relations. This field draws on methods and concepts from various social sciences—including political science, sociology, economics, law, and psychology—to analyze the nature, sources, and scope of security.

Although numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to define the concept of security throughout the discipline’s evolution, no universally accepted common definition has been established. This stems from the fact that the concept of security is interpreted differently according to historical contexts, political conditions, and theoretical orientations. Each theoretical approach defines the subject of security, its reference point, and its perception of threat according to its own paradigm.

The dynamics of conflict, competition, and cooperation in international relations have played a decisive role in shaping conceptions of security. The Cold War era, in particular, provided a framework in which security was equated with military power, state sovereignty, and deterrence. However, from the 1990s onward, following the end of the Cold War, new debates emerged asserting that security is not solely a state-centered or military issue.

Approaches developed during this period expanded and deepened the concept of security by addressing its economic, environmental, social, and humanitarian dimensions. As a result, two main trends have become prominent in the literature on security studies: traditional approaches centered on the state and military power, and critical and alternative approaches that foreground individuals, societies, identities, and values. This binary structure continues to shape how the concept of security is understood at both theoretical and practical levels today.

Traditional Security Approaches

Traditional security approaches define the international system as a continuous arena of power struggle among states and evaluate security primarily in terms of the state’s survival, territorial integrity, and protection against military threats. This approach adopts a state-centric perspective and regards the state as the primary actor in the international order. The dominant understanding during the Cold War was shaped within this framework.

Idealism and Collective Security

Following the widespread devastation of the First World War, the Idealist approach argued for the necessity of mechanisms based on law, ethics, and cooperation beyond power politics to establish international peace. This idea, first articulated in writing by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, is grounded in the view that lasting peace in international relations can be achieved not only through military deterrence but also through principles of international law, norms, and institutions.

The Idealist conception of security is based on the principle of “collective security” rather than “collective defense.” According to this principle, the fundamental condition for international security is the joint action of states against any state that threatens peace or engages in aggressive behavior. Guided by this idea, the League of Nations sought to preserve peace by imposing international sanctions on aggressive states. However, the League failed to prevent the Second World War due to member states prioritizing their national interests and the ineffectiveness of collective security mechanisms. This failure led to the decline of Idealism and the resurgence of Realist thought centered on power politics.

Realism and Power Politics

Following the Second World War, Realism emerged as the foundational theory of international relations, explaining security primarily through the concept of power. According to Realist theory, the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no central authority capable of regulating or governing state behavior. In this structure, each state is responsible for ensuring its own security.

Realists view states as rational, interest-driven actors whose primary goal is the preservation of their own existence. Since states cannot be certain of the intentions of other actors, they tend to accumulate military and strategic power. In this context, the achievement of security becomes synonymous with increasing military capacity. According to Realism, international stability is maintained through the balance of power among states. However, actions taken by one state to enhance its own security often provoke perceptions of threat in others, leading to a cycle of insecurity known as the “security dilemma.”

The intellectual foundations of Realism rest on analyses of human nature, power, and interest developed by thinkers such as Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes, and Niccolò Machiavelli. Key representatives of modern Realist thought include Hans Morgenthau, E.H. Carr, and George Kennan.

Neo-Realism (Structural Realism)

Systematized with Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 publication Theory of International Politics, Neo-Realism criticized classical Realism’s emphasis on state nature and leaders’ psychological traits, offering instead a more structural explanatory model.

According to Neo-Realism, the primary factor shaping states’ foreign policy behavior is not the internal dynamics of individual states but the structural characteristics of the international system. The anarchic structure of the system pushes states to exhibit similar behaviors under similar conditions. Waltz therefore explains state actions not through “unit-level” factors but through “system-level” constraints.

Neo-Realists argue that states aim not for absolute power accumulation but for relative power sufficient to maintain their position within the system. They note that excessive power-seeking can provoke balancing policies by other states, leading to instability. From this perspective, Neo-Realism interprets the maintenance of balance in international security as a structural necessity.

Unlike Classical Realism, Neo-Realism seeks to explain security by placing the structure of the international system—not individual or leader preferences—at the center of analysis. In this regard, it elevated the abstract level of theoretical analysis in security studies and played a key role in the widespread adoption of system-based analyses in international relations.

Post-Cold War New Approaches

With the end of the Cold War, the structure of the international system, threat perceptions, and security priorities underwent a fundamental transformation. This process gave rise to a new security environment in which inter-state military competition was replaced by multidimensional threats such as ethnic conflict, environmental crises, economic instability, migration, and terrorism. The inability of traditional security theories to explain these new threats created the conditions for the emergence of new theoretical approaches that reevaluated the meaning, scope, and referent object of security.

Constructivism

Constructivism emerged as a major paradigm in international relations theory from the 1990s onward. Shaped by contributions from theorists such as Alexander Wendt, this approach does not entirely reject the foundational assumptions of Realism and Liberalism but finds their emphasis on material factors inadequate. According to Constructivism, actors’ behavior in the international system is determined not only by material power balances or interest calculations but also by social and ideational elements such as identities, norms, values, and discourses.

Within this framework, the anarchic structure of the international system is not inherently determining; rather, it is shaped by the social meanings that states construct through their interactions. As Wendt put it, “Anarchy is what states make of it.”^【1】Thus, anarchy is not an immutable reality but a socially constructed phenomenon. States develop corresponding identities and interests depending on whether they perceive each other as friends or enemies.

According to Constructivism, security is not an objective threat condition but a relational condition constructed through mutual perceptions, identities, and discursive processes. This approach emphasizes that state interests are not fixed but are continuously reproduced and altered through social interaction. Thus, Constructivism argues that security is not merely military or strategic but also a social and cultural phenomenon.

Critical Security Studies

Emerging after the Cold War, Critical Security Studies (CSS) denotes a broad intellectual field that critically interrogates dominant conceptual frameworks of security. Rather than constituting a single unified theory, it encompasses a range of approaches that critically examine existing orders, power relations, and security discourses. The central aim of these theories is to redirect security studies toward a “liberatory” mission and to highlight that security is not merely a state-centered concern.

Critical approaches seek both to expand the scope of security—going beyond military threats—and to deepen it—shifting the referent object from the state to the individual and society. Among these approaches, the Welsh School, the Copenhagen School, and the Paris School stand out.

Welsh School (Aberystwyth School)

Inspired by the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, the Welsh School, led by Ken Booth and Richard Wyn Jones, developed a framework known as “Critical Security Theory.” At the heart of this approach is the concept of emancipation.

According to the Welsh School, true security is possible only when individuals are freed from constraining conditions such as poverty, oppression, violence, and discrimination. Therefore, the ultimate goal of security is not the state but the emancipation of individuals. The state may serve as a means to secure security, but it often endangers individual security while pursuing its own. Consequently, this approach centers the human being rather than the state as the referent object. Security and emancipation are viewed as two interdependent dimensions of the same whole.

Copenhagen School

The Copenhagen School is known for its theory of securitization, which treats security as a social process. Developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, this approach argues that security is constructed not by objective threats but through discursive acts.

According to this theory, an issue becomes a matter of security when an actor—typically the state—presents it as an existential threat through a “speech act.” This removes the issue from the realm of ordinary politics and legitimizes extraordinary measures. The process of securitization focuses not merely on the existence of a threat but on how it is defined and by which actors it is transformed into a security issue.

The Copenhagen School also does not limit security to the military dimension; it develops a multidimensional understanding of security by dividing it into distinct sectors such as political, economic, social, and environmental.

Paris School

Shaped by post-structuralist thinkers (particularly Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida), the Paris School treats security not as a fixed concept but as a phenomenon continuously reconstituted through discourses, practices, and power relations.

This school analyzes security not only through state security policies but also through everyday life practices, bureaucratic mechanisms, and social norms. The concept of the “discursive production of security” forms the foundation of this approach. The Paris School aims to uncover the power relations underlying security discourses, examining whose interests they serve and which social groups they exclude. In this context, Critical Security Studies as a whole has expanded the discipline’s boundaries by moving security away from being treated as a technical concept defining a fixed condition and instead analyzing it as a social, political, and normative process.

Other Critical Perspectives

The field of critical security studies is not merely an intellectual reconfiguration but also a normative domain that questions for whom, against what, and under what conditions security is provided. Within this framework, approaches such as Feminist Security Studies and Post-Colonial (Post-Imperial) Security Studies have introduced new social and historical dimensions to the concept of security. Both approaches seek to reassess the epistemological and ontological foundations of security by analyzing actors, identities, and power relations that traditional theories have ignored or excluded.

Feminist Security Studies

Feminist Security Studies, which emerged from the 1990s onward, is an approach that reveals the decisive role of gender in security theories. This theory argues that security has historically been structured around a patriarchal discourse. Feminist researchers assert that security has long been defined through a male-centered perspective, resulting in the systematic neglect of women’s roles and gender dynamics in security processes.

According to this approach, processes related to security—such as war, conflict, peacebuilding, and diplomacy—are shaped not only by military strategies or state policies but also by social gender relations. Women are often disproportionately affected by conflict while being excluded from decision-making mechanisms in security policy formulation.

Feminist security theorists emphasize the concept of “human security,” arguing that security must encompass not only the state’s interests but also individuals’ physical, economic, and psychological well-being. In this context, security means not merely the elimination of external threats but the establishment of social equality and justice. Figures such as Cynthia Enloe, J. Ann Tickner, and Carol Cohn are among the foundational thinkers of the feminist security perspective.

Post-Colonial (Post-Imperial) Security Studies

Post-Colonial Security Studies argues that the concept of security has historically been produced from a Western-centric perspective and therefore inadequately reflects the experiences of societies in the Global South. This approach contends that security theories are not independent of the legacy of colonialism and imperial processes of knowledge production.

Post-colonial theorists assert that modern conceptions of security generally reproduce Western political, economic, and cultural dominance. Within this framework, security is not merely a tool of protection against external threats but also a discourse that serves to sustain power and domination.

This approach examines global inequalities, center-periphery relations, and representations of the “Other” to investigate how security has been constructed through post-colonial identities, cultural hierarchies, and historical injustices. Edward Said’s conceptualization of “Orientalism” is one of the key reference points of this intellectual tradition.

Post-Colonial Security Studies advocates for centering non-Western security experiences to ensure that the global security agenda is evaluated in a more pluralistic, inclusive, and critical manner. Thus, both Feminist and Post-Colonial approaches have contributed to moving security beyond being viewed as merely a state-centered and military issue, and have instead promoted its analysis through human, cultural, and historical dimensions.