Security Dilemma

A security dilemma is a situation in which the actions taken by a state to increase its own security cause reactions from other states, which leads to a decrease rather than an increase in the state's security. Some scholars of international relations find that the security dilemma is the most important source of conflict in international relations. They argue that in the international realm, there is no legitimate monopoly of violence—that is, there is no world government—and as a consequence, each state must take care of its own security and survival. For this reason, the primary goal of states is to maximize their own security. Even if states focus solely on this goal and have no intention of harming others, many of the actions taken by states to increase their own security—such as weapons procurement and the development of new military technologies—will decrease the security of others. Decreasing the security of others does not automatically place the state in a dilemma, but because of the anarchic structure, other states will follow suit if one state arms. They cannot know whether the arming state will use its increased military capabilities for attack in the future. For this reason, they will either choose to increase their own military capabilities in order to reestablish the balance of power or they will launch a preemptive attack to prevent the arming state from upsetting the balance in the first place. If they choose the first option, the result may be a security spiral. A security spiral is an action–reaction process, where two states are tied in an armaments race with each state responding to increases in weapons procurement and defense expenditure by the other state, leading them both to arm themselves more and more heavily. This may lead to war in the long run. If they choose the last option, military conflict will be imminent.

The logic of the security dilemma was first described by Herbert Butterfield in 1949. The term itself was coined by John Herz in 1950. Although [Page 2390]the logic seems to fit particularly well with the security competition between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, proponents of the term do not see it as tied to a specific historic era. Rather, it reflects the fundamentally tragic nature of international life: State actors strive for peace and stability but end up in military conflict. Thus, even if all states are status quo powers wishing only peace and security, war may occur because of the fear and insecurity following from the anarchic structure of the international system. This focus on the effect of international anarchy on the behavior of states is typical of so-called structural realism—sometimes termed neorealism—which posits that the international system is a self-help system, where states must focus on their own interests to maximize their chance of security and survival. In particular, the security dilemma logic is central to so-called defensive realism. Proponents of defensive realism argue that states seek to maximize their chance of security and survival by maintaining their position in the international system, not by expansion. Still, scholars working within alternative theoretical traditions have discussed how the security dilemma logic looks from their perspective and have used their own theoretical insights to suggest how we might move beyond the security dilemma logic and create a more peaceful world.

...