Globalization

236 Military Art and Science

REVI STA ACADEMIEI FORŢELOR TERESTRE NR. 3 (67)/2012

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FROM THE VIEW OF SECURITY AND STABILITY ASPECTS

Radoslav IVANČÍK * Pavel NEČAS **

* General Staff of the Slovak Armed Forces, Bratislava, Slovakia ** Armed Forces Academy of Gen. M.R. Štefánik, Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia

ABSTRACT Today's inte rnational system is influe nced by a dynamic

transformation period full of questions, to which there is no simple and definite answer. The complex interplay of many factors, makes it extraordinarily diffic ult to forese e a ne w, relatively stable, world order, even with the presence of what is perc eiv ed today as the sole super or hyper powe r, which might ev en be de scribe d as an empire. Simultaneously, we are witnessing the emergence of the “supe r empowe red individual”, for whom the world is reduced to a global village . This fact means that unc ontrolled violence may strik e at any time and place. Both extre me s of powe r ope rate on the basis of entirely diffe rent interests, thus tending to produce a permanent state of struc tural instability. The international c ommunity is therefore facing a long te rm challenge to identify the conditions for a new equilibrium of legitimate stability.

Keywords: international system, securit y, stability, globalization Introduction Three of t he most significant el ements,

t he contemporary international syst em is facing while assessing the development in the area of the global securi ty environment, is the uncertainty, unpredictability and complexity. Another defining feature of t he current securi ty environment is t he rapid change resulting from a deepening globali zation in t he world.

Since t he end of t he Cold War this envi ronment has become increasingly multifarious with t he various spectrums of challenges and threat s to international securi ty widening. The concept of securit y itself has also evolved. Strategi c t hinking has t o t ake these changes into account, and produce new strategic concepts in which there

is an emerging and integrated role for st rat egic el ements other than military power. The interdisciplinary combination and complementariti es of t hese elements and capabilities is t he key to adequate responses to future security challenges, and simult aneously, to the evolution of int ernational system.

A View of International System Although there i s controversy over

what const itutes an int ernational system, the widely accepted criteria i ncludes exi stence of milit ary, political, economic and societ al i nteraction among constituent units such as states, nations, international organizat ions, transnational firms etc. The int ernational system represents an i deal vehicle for developing a world histori cal

Military Art and Science 237


perspect ive. It const it utes a framework that enables us to underst and how int ernational relat ions cohere over time.

We know that t he int ernat ional sys tems range from very small through sub-cont inental and cont inental, t o global i n scale. A theoretical framework that can es tablish how international systems have evolved through the course of the entire human history is an ambitious task that is beyond the purpose of this t opic.

The history of int ernat ional relations i s often traced back to the Peace of Westphal ia of 1648 where t he modern s tat e sys tem was developed. Prior t o this, t he European medieval organizat ion of polit ical authority was based on a vaguely hi erarchical religious order. The “Westphalian” int ernational syst em was based on the State. In t his syst em, t he st ates enjoyed exclusive int ernal t erritorial sovereignty, were protect ed by hard boundaries and int eract ed with each other t hrough formali zed interstate diplomacy. Westphal ia instit uted the notion of sovereignty, which essenti all y meant that rulers, or sovereigns, would recognize no internal equal s within a defined terri tory, and no ext ernal superiors.

Classi cal Greek and Roman authorit y could at times resemble the Westphalian system, but both lacked the notion of sovereignty. Westphalia encouraged the rise of the nation-stat e and the institutionalizati on of diplomacy and armies. This particul arly European system was exported t o the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the “standards of civi lizati on”.

The contemporary int ernat ional sys tem was final ly establ ished through decolonization during the Cold War. This representati on is, however, somewhat misl eading. While the nation-state sys tem is cons idered “modern”, many states have not i ncorporated the system and are t ermed “pre-modern”. Further, a handful of s tates have moved beyond the nat ion-stat e system and can be considered “ post -modern”.

The abilit y of contemporary international relati ons discourse to explain the relations of these di fferent types of st ates is di sputed.

The contemporary i nternational system (seen from a Euro-cent ric perspective) has been divided into three long cycles of relative st abilit y and peace, interrupted by two (if one lumps World Wars I and II together) shorter but i ntense periods of near total warfare. These periods, 1648-1789 and 1815-1914, were times of relative structural stability, at least from the vantage point of the European powers. Wars were frequently fought, but these only result ed in marginal terri torial rearrangements, and limited political and economic changes. The drastic reordering of political and t erritorial structures took place after major peace conferences: Westphalia (1648), Vienna (1815), Versailles (1919) and Yalt a/Potsdam (1945). These conferences were the result of great and destructive wars that had been fought to t he bi tter end and each constit utes a mil estone in the evolution and shaping of t he modern international system.

During these periods, peace and st ability, in relative terms, were the products of ideologically compatible regimes, functioning as if t hey were i n concert. Great wars exploded when the leaders of one or more of t he great powers (e.g., Napoleon in the 19th and Hitler i n the 20th century) sought t o achi eve world hegemony and drast ical ly alter the existing oligarchi c balance of power.

The end of World War II also marked the end of Eur asia as the centre of world power. The post -World War II order initi all y contained all the basic i ngredi ents of global inst ability, given the i deological incompatibilit y of the Eastern and Western camps. The year 1945 is signi fi cant i n the sense that i t represent s the shi ft from a long-standing multi-polar world to a bi-polar one. The beginning of decolonization and the advent of nuclear weapons wer e al so important factors leading to the Cold War between the blocs, which alternated



between varying degrees of tens ion and dét ente. It al so enhanced the appl ication of t he principles of mul ti lat eral ism in i nternational relations, for example through the UN and regional alli ances.

The histori c events that began in t he l ate 1980s, eventually culminating in the dissolution of t he Soviet Union and the end of t he Warsaw Pact, signi fi cantly alt ered this bipolar world order, which for roughly 50 years, and had been acknowledged as the norm. These developments marked a move from a bipolar to a unipolar system with the Unit ed St ates becoming the sole superpower with global power projection capabiliti es, buttressed by a dynamic, innovative, and very l arge economic structure, which set t he pace for the global economy.

International i nstitut ions such as NATO and to a l esser extent t he EU were qui ck to adapt to t he changes after the end of t he cold war. Internal and ext ernal adaptati on efforts were initiat ed and implemented, with both instit utions embarking upon an enl argement process. While the end of t he Cold War was i niti all y accompanied by euphoria, the Gulf War and subsequent tragedies in the Balkans brought shocking reali ties back into focus. It was clear that the i nternational system was far from being perfect and certainly not adept at dealing with aggression (as was t he case against Kuwait ) or in preventing acts of ethnic persecution and genocide as witnessed in t he Balkans, Africa and beyond. The confli cts in t he Balkans generated the debate on the bal ance between sovereignty on the one hand and human rights and democracy on the other.

The terrorist attack on the Unit ed States in September 2001 was the climax of a phenomenon that had been emerging since t he end of the Cold War. The sheer magnitude and nature of the attack brought t hese emerging chall enges t o int ernational securit y into st ark reali ty. The new world order can no longer be defined in terms of i nterests of and arrangements between

nat ional sovereign states. It has become increasingly influenced by transnat ional processes, i n a st eadily globalizing int ernational environment.

Globalization and global int erdependence are mani fest in a vari ety of areas such as information, knowledge, resources, ecology and migration, all of them providing both opportunities and risks to stat e and non-st ate actors. It redefines the dist ribution of power which is no longer the collecti ve monopoly of the community of nation st ates. This tends to further erode state sovereignty as the basic el ement of the modern int ernational system. This trend i s counterbalanced by the (nation) st ate’s indispensable and unique role as a harbour for its people, both as their l egal home and often as t he bedrock of t heir identity as well.

Today´s an i nternational syst em is influenced by a dynamic period of transformation full of quest ions, to which there i s no singl e or definit ive answer. The complex interplay of many factors, some of which are addressed here, makes it ext raordinarily difficult to foresee a new, relati vely stable, world order, even with the presence of what i s perceived today as t he sol e super or hyper power, which might even be described as an empi re. Simult aneously, we are witnessing the emergence of the “ super empowered individual ”, for whom the world is reduced to a global vill age. Thi s fact means that uncont roll ed violence may strike at any time and place. Both extremes of power operate on the basis of enti rely di fferent int erests, thus tending to produce a permanent st ate of st ructural instabili ty. The int ernational community is therefor e facing a long term challenge to identify t he condi tions for a new equil ibrium of legitimate stabili ty.

Security and Stability Aspects During the Cold War, t he dominant

perspect ive on security matters held by politici ans, defence planners and academics



suggested that security issues were relatively straight forward. Since then, the notion and concept of securi ty i ncreasingly evokes very di fferent images: they may range from the physical securit y of an i ndividual, through securi ty within a st ate and national security, t o i nternational and even wider (global) securi ty. The international system is based on the st ate to which the concept of security is closely related. The UN Chart er defines the essence of securit y.

The definition i ncludes t he following: “a conditi on in which states consider that t here is no danger of military attack, pol itical pressure or economic coercion, so t hat they are able to pursue freel y t heir own development and progress”.

The remaining part of the definiti on speci fies what securi ty impl ies for t he i ndividuals and communities within a state. The defini ti on also st ates that security is t o be attained using instruments at t he nat ional, i ntergovernmental, non-governmental and global level. Securi ty is a broad, l ayered concept , and the stat e i s t he principal entit y t hat bears responsibilit y for providing security.

Aspect of Secur ity Securi ty is t raditi onally linked to

mil itary power as t he main provider of securi ty. NATO can be considered as a collective provider of securit y for al l of its member st ates, as it has been for more than hal f a century. However, t he growing complexity and scale of international relations calls for a conceptual innovation of securi ty. Along with international relations and globalised polit ics, security as a concept i s extending its scope and has mult ipl e dimens ions: t he i nterconnect ed threats of our globalised world today include not just i nternational war and confl ict but al so internal confli ct i ncluding civil war, genocide and other large scale atrocities, t errorism, t ransnational organized crime, drug and human traffi cking, human rights, weapons of mass destruction as well as economic and social threats, including poverty, i nfectious diseases and environmental degradation. In

order to define the multidimensional character of securi ty, t he overarching concept is l abelled int ernational, global, and ultimately, comprehensive security.

Dangers, or, more accurat ely, risks facing s tates and their al li es, are of a more indi rect nature and are sometimes even the unint ended resul ts of human ent erpri se. Moreover, in a globalizing world, in the pursuit of its own development, values and int erests, a state or region may increasingly cl ash with t hose of other stat es or int ernational actors. Obviously, security dil emmas wil l emerge more often than in the past, in the sense that one stat e’s efforts to increase i ts security might decrease t he securit y of other s tat es.

The Uni tes Stat es’ ongoing “war against t errorism” int roduced a new el ement into the int ernational security envi ronment that can be described as a twilight zone between war and peace. In this twilight zone the domains of ext ernal securit y and int ernal securit y merge. We are facing a conceptual enlargement of the idea of security t hat is chaotic and needs to be broken down into an ent irely di fferent set of threat, or better, risk phenomena.

With t he world becoming a smaller place, the original definition in the UN Chart er could be extended to t ake into account t he new realit ies. Upon the United Nations Secretary General’ s i nitiative, a High-Level Panel was set up and del ivered its report entit led “ A more secure world: Our Shared Responsibil ity” in December 2004. The report pointed out, among others, to the immediat e need to reach a securit y consensus about the meaning and responsibi lities of col lect ive securit y and proposed a series of recommendat ions in this regard.

In a global izing envi ronment, securit y has to be understood as a dynamic concept, as the actions of stat es as well as the int eractions among states and with non-st ate entiti es potent ially lead to rapidly changing pat terns i n securit y situations and, more import antly, security perceptions. Whether a l ooming conflict of i nterests wi ll



be resolved, will continue or even flare into violence, depends on many vari ables that are related to the poli ti cal attit ude and relat ions of the actors i nvolved.

Aspect of Stabil ity Stabilit y can be described as t he

ext ent t o which a national or int ernational sys tem is abl e to provide security t o its members even under adverse condit ions. It i s t he abili ty of a st ate or international order t o be self-sus tainable in securi ty through the avai labi lity and applicat ion of i nstrument s that provide control mechanisms to neutralize negative development s within soci ety, t he envi ronment, the economy and the rel ations between stat es. Such instruments include diplomacy, treati es, l aws and, more i ndirectly, interdependency.

Inst abil ity may escalate into confrontati on, violence and armed confli ct, t hus directly affecting security. If relat ively small events or incidents trigger escalati on, a system i s highly inst able. A regionally unstabl e situation can be “ frozen” by ext ernal monitoring, control or intervention. However, t he securi ty thus achieved is not st able or self-sustainable, but artifici al.

St ability has a positive and a negative side: positi ve i n the sense t hat it impli es that securi ty is guaranteed by the arrangements and cont rols developed.

Negative when the controls and regulations are so tight that there is littl e opportunity for change and development: such a st ate of s tagnation would clearly be undesirable in a climate of global i nterconnectivity and liberal economy.

One might ask why the aspects of securit y and stabi lity have become so import ant in t oday’s i nternational system and rel ations. One explanation could be that this syst em and predominantly these relati ons are essenti all y chaotic and the concept of securi ty serves t he need to st ructure these rel ati ons.

Another interest ing question is the rational e of exporting security and st ability to politically eruptive regions in t he world and to analyze the driving factors behind it.

Conclusions Relations in today’s int ernat ional

syst em are, i n compari son to relations prevaili ng during the Cold War, very complicated. Most of t he securit y chal lenges and risks i n contemporary global securit y environment are of a non-mi litary nature.

These security risks are closely int erconnected; consequently, the risk in one dimension may affect t he si tuation in other fields . Most of the risks and chal lenges in one region of the world ar e al so common to the adjacent areas .

This merely underlines the int erconnection and complexity of t he contemporary international system, and simultaneously, emphasizes the significance of stabi lity for the future int ernational securi ty environment.

A lead item is the notion of “ comprehensive security”, which t akes into account t he full range of direct and indirect securit y chal lenges and threat s t o soci eti es, nat ions and the int ernational syst em as a whole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ivančí k, Radosl av. “Theoret ical and Methodological Approach to Defence and Securit y

i n a Time of Globali zation”. In Science & Military, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011. Ivančí k, Radosl av, and Pavel Nečas. “The Influence of Global Economic Depression on

National and International Defence and Securi ty”. In The Knowledge Based Organizat ion: Conference Proceedings f rom the 17th International Sci entific Conference. Sibiu: “ Nicolae Bălcescu” Land Forces Academy Publishing House, 2011.



Nečas, Pavel, and František Olejník. Wanted More Secur ity: Towards a Better World. Košice: Faculty of Aeronaut ics of the Technical Universit y, 2007.

Nečas, Pavel, and Radosl av Ivančík. Globalizácia, obrana a bezpečnosť. Liptovský Mikuláš : Akadémia ozbroj ených síl gen. M. R. Štefánika, 2011.

Olak, Antoni. Bezpieczeństwo i zagrożenia społeczne. Zarys problematyki. AMELIA Rzeszów, 2012.

Olak, Antoni, and Vojtech Jurcak. “Sekurit ologi czne, pedagogiczne i prakseologiczne podej ście do systemu bezpieczeństwa”. In M. Mikołajczyk A. Olak, Nieuchronna pol isemia synergii. Międzynarodowe i lokalne aspekty bezpieczeństwa w Polsce i na Słowacj i. Stowarzyszeni e “NAUKA EDUKACJA ROZWÓJ” Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski, 2012.

Szabo, St anislav, and Pavel Nečas. Back to t he Future: Geopolitical Secur ity or Chaos? Košice: Faculty of Aeronaut ics of Technical Universit y, 2006.

The United Nations Chart er. The United Nations General Assembly. High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges

and Change, 2004.

Copyright of Revista Academiei Fortelor Terestre is the property of "Nicolae Balcescu" Land Forces Academy

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Globalization