This article argues that even if the state represents a solution to the security needs of one group of people, it may be a source of threat to another. This is so because the construction of the state is necessarily an exclusive process, and those who are excluded in some cases become a source of threat. In addition, the state sometimes represents a threat to its own people. In sum, on the basis of an existing critical literature within security studies, the article questions the role of the state in maintaining security. In this context, it utilizes the debate on identity formation to defend the necessity of constructing open and inclusive political spaces. It then applies this theoretical discussion to the cases of the Middle East and the Balkans, and argues that the alternative to the sovereign state that is being put in place in the Balkans might represent a valuable example for the Middle East.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
* Nizar Messari is Assistant Professor at the Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University.
2.
1 See, for instance, Keith Krause, `Insecurity and State Formation in the Global Military Order: The Middle Eastern Case', European Journal of International Relations, vol. 2, no. 3, September 1996, pp. 319-354, on p. 320.
3.
2 John Herz, `Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma', World Politics, vol. 2, no. 2, January 1950, pp. 157-180.
4.
3 Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1979).
5.
4 John Mearsheimer, `The False Promise of International Institutions', International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, Winter 1994/95, pp. 5-49.
6.
5 Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1983).
7.
6 Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver & Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998).
8.
7 Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995).
9.
8 Keith Krause & Michael Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
10.
9 This is certainly an idea defended by Walker in many instances. I refer here to R. B. J. Walker, `The Subject of Security', in Krause & Williams (note 8 above), pp. 61-82, on p. 69.
11.
10 Walker (note 9 above), p. 68.
12.
11 Peter Taylor, `The Modern Multiplicity of States', in Eleonore Kofman & Gillian Youngs, eds, Globalization: Theory and Practice (London: Pinter, 1996), pp. 99-108.
13.
12 Fred Dallmayr, `Conversation Across Boundaries: Political Theory and Global Diversity', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, Fall 2001, pp. 331-347, on p. 334.
14.
13 Ibid., p. 346.
15.
14 I mean here the commonly called second intifada, whose beginning can be traced to the visit of the then Israeli opposition leader - and current Israeli prime minister - Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif on 28 September 2000.
16.
15 Following the lead of Hedley Bull, and before him Martin Wight, Helga Haftendorn defines three different approaches to the study of security: national security follows Hobbesian thinking; international security follows Grotian thinking; and global security follows Kantian thinking. For more details, see Helga Haftendorn, `The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International Security', International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, March 1991, pp. 3-17.
17.
16 Krause (note 1 above), p. 352.
18.
17 For more details, see W. Raymond Duncan & G. Paul Holman, Jr., eds, Ethnic Nationalism and Regional Conflict: The Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1994).
19.
18 For more details, see Richard Holbrooke, To End a War (New York: Random House, 1998).
20.
19 Ken Booth, `Cold Wars of the Mind', in Ken Booth, ed., Statecraft and Security: The Cold War and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
21.
20 Andrew Linklater, `Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, vol. 2, no. 1, March 1996, pp. 77-103.
22.
and Joachim K. Blatter, `Debordering the World of States: Towards a Multi-Level System in Europe and a Multi-System in North America? Insights from Border Regions', European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 2, June 2001, pp. 175-209.
23.
22 Gary Marks, Liesbert Hooghe & Kermit Blank, `European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric vs. Multi-Level Governance', Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, September 1996, pp. 341-378.
24.
23 Adekeye Adebajo, Building Peace in West Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002).
25.
24 Material disputes are determined by ideas and ideals. As Alexander Wendt put it, `material forces are secondary, significant insofar as they are constituted with particular meanings for actors'; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 24.
