First: the pragmatic concept of security: It is based on the hypotheses that the state is the main – if not the sole – international player. It acts in unison and with one voice to express its will and rationally in the security relations domain. According to this school of thought, the World Order is chaotic and anarchic due to the absence of a central international authority. Consequently, the state single-handedly fends for itself, seizing and using power to defend its interest. Thus, war becomes a natural tool for outward movement in the event that the balance of power becomes defective, threatening the existing order. Preserving order and the status quo is the sole aim of this conservative concept.

So, war as a tool to redress the imbalance effects a change from within the order that does not affect the essence of this order, its anarchic state or the nature of its relations and rules. In fact, such international war leads to changing the hegemony state in the order rather than the basis of the order itself, mindful that there is always hegemony and other states. Meanwhile, Portugal, Holland, Britain and the U.S.A. have successively assumed the hegemony role ever since the 16th century. According to the pragmatic theory, security means the state security. In this sense, it seeks regional integration, social cohesion and stability of the state, compromising the security of the individual and society.

Meanwhile, international security means inter-state security relations, eclipsing the global security concept as well as the regional security perspective.

According to this hypothesis, security is summed up in the survival concept which prospers in a climate of conflict, tension and war. In line with this trend ,seizing and using power represents the core of the state’s security policy, while military force represents its main tool.

It could safely be said that this school of thought does not give a specific answer to the inevitability of war issue. It is based on the idea that politics is a continuous struggle to attain power and influence. The contemporary international community is characterized by competition and disputes in tandem with friendly relations, good neighborliness and cooperation. This state of affairs is destined to continue until the end of the world. Such a perspective is vital to understand international relations. The theory calls for international policies to be practical and based on experiment. In seeking to achieve influence and stature, countries resort to several means including the use of force or the threat thereof. This in turn means that military preparedness is a tool for achieving and spreading influence.

In line with the above, the pragmatic concept provides clear evidence that war is the tool to implement state policy, e.g. the Crusaders used the armed forces to seize the holy places in the Orient, while the Nasis tried to turn Eastern Europe into a Nazi colonization headquarters before controlling Europe in its entirety and ultimately the world. In these two examples and elsewhere the armed force was used to achieve goals. Thus, war has a mission in international politics because states have espoused the use of force. Worthy of note is that the author of the pragmatic theory is Hans Morgenthau who explained it in his book, the search for power that controls political relations among states. He later examined and analyzed the theory. He considers international politics as a struggle for power and influence, i.e. interest which in turn is the essence of politics.

He rejected the pragmatists’ idea of democratic peace, stating the following views:

1.The considerations of the balance of power have always finally decided all conflicts.

2.The pragmatists rule out the views that the superpowers in the World Order are democratic.

Some have indicated that states tend to get involved in war when they are in the middle of a democratic change, which means that  efforts to export democracy could worsen the situation. The pragmatists say that sometimes it is not in the interest of the big powers if democracy prevails in certain countries- small nations in the World Order- as it may bring undesirable elements to power, threatening the vital interests of the big powers in the regions. The history of the big powers abounds in such examples. Advocates of this school of thought say that democracy outside the western world will certainly bolster political movements that are hostile to the west, particularly the Islamic movements.

Such a stance tallies with the pragmatic thought: values and principles should only be respected if they are compatible with the national interest without any negative effects. In case of any contradiction, the national interest shall prevail. This in turn poses the following question: which type of democracy or political system do the influential powers in the World Order prefer in countries of the South? The matter provokes a wide range of analysis, noting that democracy is being used as a bargaining chip against regimes adopting policies that are hostile to the world’s centers of hegemony. At the same time these centers turn a blind eye to violations of democracy in these regimes. According to this school ,peace is merely “the absence of war” no more.

Second: security concept according to the liberal theory:

The liberal theory seeks to reform the existing order through gradual development procedures. Its intellectual framework is based on rejecting the pragmatic concept’s hypotheses. To the liberals, the states is not the sole player in international security relations. On the contrary, certain other players within or through the states sometimes have equal or more importance than the state. Also, the state is not an opaque wall or one voice. It is comprised of numerous institutions and groupings with different visions and interests and may have to reach compromises on such visions and interests. Moreover, there is also room for mistake in comprehension, calculation or information leading to irrational actions in security relations. Therefore, the security concept in the liberal theory is more complicated than in the pragmatic theory. Not confined to the military dimension, it transcends that to vital economic, cultural and social aspects. Not revolving around the stat’s national force compared to that of other states, it is established on the concept that wealth should build the national society regardless of its relations with the wealth of other communities. This concept lays the emphasis on reciprocal benefits resulting from inter-community cooperation. If reciprocal benefits in international economic, political, commerce, finance, currency, technology …etc is a basic pillar of the liberal theory so is free dealing, free trade and free ideas. Freedom is a philosophic end for the reformist liberal concept in as much as order is a philosophic end for the conservative pragmatic theory. Also, while war is a natural trend in the pragmatic theory it constitutes for the liberals a tragic mistake that should be prevented or curbed by agreements and international organizations as the liberal school is concerned more with mutual cooperation than with the narrow national interest.

The liberal school is based on the fact that international politics today not only gives attention to conventional geopolitical dimensions (including security and military affairs), but also takes into account the economic and social aspects. These include fighting terrorism and respect for human rights. As such, it sheds light on the ever increasing restrictions on the policies of the South regimes which are required to copy the western democratic example to spread the culture of peace in the world. All this makes it imperative to impose restrictions and pile pressure by the democratic West on countries of the South, believing that there is a wide range of options for the liberal western countries to globalize the liberal democracy, including institutional incentives, political strings or military intervention. The liberals also are of the opinion that the abolition of war will allow the spread of capitalist democracies.

Supporters of effective Western influence to achieve democracy cite the following arguments:

1.Promotion of liberal democracy which should forcefully become the principal alternative for the old political systems.

2.The new world power is comprised of numerous countries which, though not united, are governed by the democratic system.

3.The vast majority of world nations are under democratic rule, albeit in different forms.

4.Only the democratic system enjoys political legitimacy.

5.The democratic political system is closely linked to the human rights principles that should be enjoyed by all peoples of the world.

6.The World Order’s violation of state’s sovereignty is for the sake of enhancing democracy and freedoms. Hence, the objective of the current World Order would be to uproot the authoritative system’s stronghold, converting all states to the democratic political system.

There are several trends within the liberal theory.

a\ the new liberal trend:

A so-called new liberal trend has emerged within the liberal theory. It is not in contradiction with the basic concept of the pragmatic school on such issues as the anarchic World Order and the maturity of the state’s actions. However, it argues that cooperation among states should be conducted through the establishment of criteria, institutions and regimes that accept certain values and rules for cooperation, in such a way as contributes to the establishment of stability in the absence of a global government. The liberal vision has promoted the collective security concept, meaning the states agreement to collectively respond to any aggression by any member state in the World Order.

b\ feminine trend:

This is another tributary of the liberal school and some of its supporters believe that a considerable increase in feminine participation could change the nature of the World Order to achieve more security.

With regard to international security issues, a comparison has shown that men seem to adopt the autonomy concept while women prefer the connections concept, i.e. that the former stance tends to adopt the pragmatic vision while the latter tends to adopt the liberal vision. Therefore, the feminine trend believes that men are closer than women to adopt war as a tool for conducting security relations. Although certain feminine leaders, such as Thatcher, do not differ from men in this regard, some supporters of this trend believe that a considerable increase in feminine participation could change the World Order to provide more security.

c\ the peace studies school trend:

The liberal trend also includes the peace studies school whose security concept reflects its political science, physics, psychology and other specializations. This school has broadened the security studies scope to include the social and economic elements overlooked by the pragmatic school.

The peace studies school admits its propensity towards peace considering it a good thing while war is not. It has also contributed to apply the theory, enveloping the peace groups and movements in the political process.

The peace studies school is of the opinion that militarism in numerous cultures is responsible for states' tendency to resort to force in international bargaining. While peace in the pragmatic school is a negative stance, meaning only the absence of war, it is a positive stance in the peace studies school, meaning addressing poverty and injustice, the prime causes of violence. And consequently, renouncing the use of force would be an effective tool, particularly for poor and oppressed people (the civil resistance movement led by Gandhi in India).

Third: the security concept according to the revolutionary theory:

The revolutionary theory is the opposite of the conservative concept. The revolution seeks to change rather than reform the order. The change is imperative because the order is characterized by clear injustice. Therefore, speedy and revolutionary change is necessary. This vision was widely considered in studying the North-South relations and development in the South due to the grinding poverty and injustice suffered by most peoples. Revolutionary theories in general accord higher priority to justice, considering war the outcome of economic hegemony relations. They also consider changing the economic relations as the key to resolving the war dilemma.

Fourth: security concept according to the romantic theory:

Supporters of this theory believe in the principle of the inevitability of war. Most of those supporters hail from Germany spearheaded by Henrico Von Trish. They stress the need for war, adding that it shall continue until the end  of the world. This stance is attributable to the nature of the laws of the world community and man’s deep-seated nature. The theory was discarded because it was rejected by intellectuals and scholars and due to its failure to keep abreast of modern science.

Dr. Abdul Azeem Mahmoud Hanafi