Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The relationship between ‘security’ and ‘liberty’ is a foundational dilemma in political thought, amplified in the realm of international politics. Traditionally, security – encompassing state survival, territorial integrity, and protection from external threats – has often been presented as necessitating limitations on individual and collective liberties. However, a purely security-focused approach risks authoritarianism and the suppression of fundamental rights. The post-World War II ‘liberal international order’ (LIO), built on principles of democracy, free trade, and multilateralism, ostensibly aims to reconcile these competing values. This answer will examine this balance, assessing whether the LIO is demonstrably more ‘security-friendly’ in its practical application.
Defining Security and Liberty
Security, in international relations, extends beyond military defense to encompass economic security, energy security, and human security – the protection of individuals from violence, poverty, and environmental degradation. It’s often framed as a state-centric concern, prioritizing the collective over the individual. Liberty, conversely, emphasizes individual rights, freedoms, and self-determination. In the international context, this translates to national sovereignty, democratic governance, and the protection of human rights.
The Liberal International Order and Security
The LIO, established largely by the United States and its allies, has demonstrably prioritized security in several ways. The formation of NATO in 1949, a collective defense alliance, exemplifies this. Similarly, the UN Security Council, with its veto power vested in five permanent members, often prioritizes maintaining international peace and security, sometimes at the expense of national sovereignty or human rights concerns. The proliferation of security alliances, arms control treaties (like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968), and counter-terrorism initiatives post-9/11 all underscore a security-focused agenda. The ‘War on Terror’ saw significant curtailment of civil liberties globally in the name of security.
The Liberal International Order and Liberty
However, the LIO also promotes liberty through its emphasis on democratic governance, the rule of law, and human rights. Institutions like the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC) aim to protect individual freedoms and hold states accountable for human rights violations. The promotion of free trade through the World Trade Organization (WTO) is predicated on the idea of economic liberty and open markets. Furthermore, the spread of democratic norms, while uneven, has been a stated goal of many LIO actors. The European Union, with its emphasis on fundamental rights and freedoms, represents a regional manifestation of this liberal commitment.
Critical Analysis: A Shifting Balance
The claim that the LIO is ‘security-friendly’ is complex. While the LIO’s architecture contains strong security components, these often operate *within* a framework of liberal values. For example, NATO’s collective defense is intended to protect liberal democracies. However, the balance has demonstrably shifted towards security in recent decades. The rise of non-state actors, terrorism, and great power competition (particularly with China and Russia) has led to increased surveillance, restrictions on movement, and a greater willingness to prioritize national security interests over international cooperation. The increasing use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool, while ostensibly aimed at promoting certain behaviors, often impacts civilian populations and restricts economic liberty. The COVID-19 pandemic also saw governments globally enacting emergency measures that curtailed civil liberties in the name of public health security.
Furthermore, the LIO’s inherent inequalities and power imbalances contribute to a security-focused approach. Powerful states often prioritize their own security concerns, potentially undermining the rights and interests of weaker states. The selective application of international law and the frequent use of veto power in the UN Security Council demonstrate this bias.
| Security Aspects of LIO | Liberty Aspects of LIO |
|---|---|
| NATO, UN Security Council, Arms Control Treaties | UN Human Rights Council, ICC, WTO (free trade) |
| Counter-terrorism measures, Surveillance | Promotion of democratic norms, Rule of law |
| Sanctions regimes | Regional integration (e.g., EU) |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the liberal international order is not inherently ‘security-friendly’ in a way that eclipses its commitment to liberty. Rather, it represents a constant negotiation between these two competing values. While the LIO’s foundational principles emphasize liberty, its practical application has increasingly leaned towards security, particularly in response to contemporary challenges. The future of the LIO hinges on its ability to restore a more equitable balance, ensuring that security measures do not unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and freedoms, and that the pursuit of security does not come at the cost of a truly liberal international order.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.