The notion of Security Complex

It is important to ascertain whether any, and if so which, of the aforementioned systems characterizes, on its own, the world reality, or that of specific macro-regions, in an exclusive logic: in our view, not one but several of those systems may be identified and overlap in the same international or regional framework, which justifies the reference to a security complex. On the other hand, independently of the favoured concept to characterize a certain framework, in a specific space and time, a security system is only one of several in existence; it interacts with other systems and other units in a dynamic network of direct and indirect effects on the framework of relationships reflected in the security environment.

Thus, the security complex may be understood as a system of security systems. More specifically, thesecurity complex is a network of linear and non-linear relationships among multiple components and of interactions among several systems of security at different levels, and of different dimensions, from which result certain patterns in connections, structures, and behaviours that, in turn, interact with the internal and external environments of that security network.

The concept of security complex is associated with the study and theories of complex systems. It is a scientific field that permeates all areas of knowledge and which, in short, focuses on «how parts of a system produce collective behaviours of the system and how the system interacts with its environment» (New England Complex Systems Institute – NECSI). There are five main ideas that are fundamental to the understanding of the concept of systems complex and, therefore, of security complex: system, pattern, network, scale, and linearity.

Naturally, the most important is the concept of system, inasmuch as we started by defining "complex" as a "system of systems". According to Yaneer Bar-Yam (s/d) "a system is the outlined portion of the universe which is separated from the rest by an imaginary border... the key concept of ‘system’ is that, once it is identified, it describes: the system’s properties, the properties of the universe beyond the system which affect the system, the interactions/relationships among the parts of the system, and between these components and the universe." The system is not isolated from the environment; rather, it interacts with the environment. In some cases, it may be useful to isolate the system. In other cases, one first focuses on the interactions/relationships. Often, the identification of a certain security system stems from delimiting a certain geographic space and focusing on the characteristics of interactions and/or how they change. However, it is also possible to identify systems in a way that does not correspond to spatial division: for instance, we may consider an economic system in face of other systems (cultural, political, institutional, etc.) and downplay spatial aspects.

Pattern corresponds, in short, to the idea of repetition - of structures, ideas, behaviours, or, in ultimately, of systems within a broader collection of systems. One simple way to understand a pattern is to detect repetition of behaviours or relationships But we may also think of the pattern in terms of quantity and quality of repetitions: the more often and coincidental those repetitions are the more solid or clear a particular pattern is. Therefore, identifying patterns of security, understanding how they interrelate, and observing their effects upon the group of systems, help us determine the character of a certain security complex.

The network is the sum of connections that allow interactions and influences among the parts (units and sub-systems) of the system complex. Sometimes, the designation of network expresses, in itself, a system in its whole, considering the effects of these connections. There are, obviously, many types of networks, but a fundamental aspect to understand is that the parts are directly or indirectly connected among themselves; subsequently, each network connection can be characterized by vectors such as force, influence, substance, motivation, capacity, etc...Potentially, all networks have influence over the interconnected components, other networks, and the network complex as a whole. The study and explanation of a security complex in a given region or in the world involves, then, setting up networks amidst networks and players which implies not only identifying the different networks and units, but also observing their effects and establishing which behaviours and influences are common or different in the multiple connections.

Scale refers both to the size of the complex under study and the scope of the impact of units, networks, patterns, and systems, as well as the influence of the complex of systems itself. In both instances - size and range of influence - a security complex interconnects security of different scales, from intra-State levels to global security. Scale is important both for purposes of definition and delimitation of the security complex itself, and for measuring mutual impact at different levels. For that reason, all other scales must be considered.

Finally, linearity is a recurring aspect in relationships of cause-and-effect. The concept of linear relationship suggests that «two quantities are proportional between themselves: if you double one, you must also double the other» (Bar-Yam, s/d). Linear relationships are, in many cases, the first approach used to describe international relations, despite the fact that there is not a single way to define what a linear relationship is in terms of "content": for example, a linear relationship of historical association and identity elements between the Popular Republic of China and Taiwan is necessarily different from a linear relationship in an economic or political and diplomatic perspective between the same countries. The problem is that, even taking into account a great variety of linear relations, it is still very far from characterizing a system, and even further from characterizing a complex system. Therefore, it is necessary to consider, equally, the non-linear relationships, which are understood, simply, as those which are not linear and greatly amplify the potential scope of causalities and dependencies. Often, problems are very difficult to understand and resolve because the relationships between causes and effects are not easy to establish: alterations in a system 'here" have frequent consequences in a system "there", since the parts and systems are interdependent. In other words, returning to the prior example, the relationship between the PR China and Taiwan results from many sorts of relations between the two, but at the same time, it also reflects and helps to stipulate relationships, at different levels, between either country and the USA and other players in Asia-Pacific and around the world. This means that the security complex is made up of, and to some extent results from, the sum and convergence of linear and non-linear relations with repercussions in the domain of security.

Conclusions

The concept of security proposed in this paper - meaning the protection and promotion of values and interests considered to be vital to the well-being and political survival of the community, and considering that the closer the community is to the absence of concerns of political, economic, and military nature, the more safeguarded its security is may, admittedly, be the focus of criticisms and objections: open to abuses; subjective and ambiguous; problematic in terms of "theoretical placement" and identity of research agenda. However, any concept of security slightly more inclusive is virtually exposed to criticism, and we cannot allow that to dissuade us from introducing what we consider to be an operational concept. On the other hand, restricting a concept for the sake of great simplification would risk making it less adequate to reality, as we would be forced, a priori, to consider exclusions independently of specific situations. Consequently, and in the face of the need to make an option, we decided to pursue a more open, inclusive, and flexible approach, in order to consider all the possibilities of the highly complex and contested concept of security.

Moreover, the purpose of defining a concept is to indicate its essence and its fundamental limits, and it must be the measured according to its applicability to problem solving. In our view, the approach we propose expands and deepens the concept of security without making it excessively inclusive, as it establishes important parameters in terms of reference (community) and core values (political survival and well-being); it does not restrict, a priori, the range of possibilities of interconnections and the multiplicity of its vital parts; it permits to involve/ characterize different types of concepts, divided in function of the reference and nature of threats, of instruments and concerns; and it simplifies comparative analysis among different theoretical-conceptual hypotheses, and between the latter the specific reality of security. At the same time, it permits evaluating the most significant aspects and, if necessary, establishes new interconnections.

Regarding the concept of "security complex" - defined as a system of systems and a network of linear relationships among multiple parts, a system of interactions among several systems of security, at different scales and dimensions, which result in several patterns in connections, structures, and behaviours that, in turn, interact with the internal and external environments of that security network- they clearly overlap the multiple characterizations of the systems of security. In a specific space/dimension where many and different units and systems interact, the impact is not only a certain international/regional "order", but also a certain security complex, which eventually comprises, simultaneously, elements of competitive security, collective security, cooperative security, and security community. And, in fact, taking into account the current international reality as a whole, there is not a system, but rather a complex of systems of security.

Top

Footnotes

(1) Whenever, in this paper, we make reference to concept/approach/school/paradigm/ perspective/"realist" vision, we consider its essence or fundamental and defining traits, without tending to the great diversity and wealth of analysis it entails.

(2) One of the most influential is that of the Commission on Human Security (2003: 4):«Humansecurity means protecting fundamental freedoms—freedoms that are the essence of life. It meansprotecting people from critical (severe) andpervasive (widespread) threats and situations. Itmeans using processes that build on people’sstrengths and aspirations. It means creatingpolitical, social, environmental, economic, militaryand cultural systems that together give people thebuilding blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity».

(3) G. Evans (1993) describes cooperative security as: 1) multidimensional in amplitude and gradual in temper; 2) more inclusive than exclusive; 3) places more emphasis on the assurance of security than on dissuasion; 4) it is not restrictive in terms of membership; 5) favors a multilateral approach over a bilateral one; 6) does not favor military solutions over non-military ones; 7) It assumes that all States are primary players in the security system while accepting that non-state players may have an important role; 8) Does not request the creation of formal security institutions, though, naturally, it does not reject them; 9) and, above all, it stresses the value of creating "dialogue habits" based on a multilateral approach.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 698