Diagrama de procesos área REQM – Descripción detallada e implementación en

Thinking of civil conflict as a security problem for the states born in the twentieth century is not a new concept. Security studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s criticized the traditional concept of security based on the realist school because it overlooked complex security problems the Third World states faced, focusing only on the

international aspect. New groups of scholars emphasized the importance of the domestic dimension of security, such as the legitimacy problems of a given regime in power and its relations with internal and external conflicts. For them, internal threats are as important as external threats, and thus security policies of these states must have involved in domestic considerations as well as their relationships with external considerations.

Despite their similarity and connectedness, it is surprising to find a disconnection between security studies and civil conflict studies in the field of IR. I believe that building a bridge between the two sub-fields will generate more comprehensive insights into the states’ decisions in facing internal turmoil.

Despite its heavy presence in the literature, security is still a contested and underdeveloped concept that has a relatively short history (Buzan 1991; Thomas 1992). The concept was originally defined in terms of violent external threats and the states’ response to these threats (Azar and Moon 1988). In response to the devastating World Wars, policy makers in the Western states made an effort to think of international politics more systematically and find ways to protect their country from threats. This traditional concept of security is based on a realist perception of international relations (Thomas 1992). The realist paradigm assumes that a state is a unitary and rational actor who plays a principal role in the anarchic international environment. Because it is a unitary actor, the internal dynamics of the state are not considered. As a rational actor, the state pursues uncontestable national interests and values. Relationships with other states are established based only on their interests. Therefore, the territorial integrity and political

independence (sovereignty) of the state and the physical protection of the population from external adversaries are the most important values that should be preserved (Alagappa 1987).

Although there has been no clear agreement on how to define the concept of security, there are some common features that are included in the attempts to define it: the freedom from threats and the protection of a state’s core values.10 _{In this research, I}

define security as “the ability or effort of the state to preserve and protect core values

from threats.” The controversy over the interpretation of the concept arises from the “relative nature of threats and core values”. That is, the nature of threats and core values are relative in that they vary from state to state, across issue areas, and over time (Azar and Moon 988, 2). Consequently, the concept of security can be interpreted differently depending on how the threats and values are identified and perceived by policy makers.11

Applying the traditional realist approach to the non-Western countries, especially the postcolonial states, is problematic in this sense. Distinctive historical experiences plus the domestic and international situations surrounding these countries have brought about a much more complex nature of threats to the incumbent regime and different priorities in core values (Azar and Moon 1988). Accordingly, analyzing the security problems and policies of newly born states based on the Western perspectives provides us only

fragmentary knowledge. Threats cannot be defined only externally in these countries. In fact, internal insurgencies and rebellion are perhaps the most serious security threats that the new states often face because it can directly jeopardize the incumbent’s survival. Not only is the range of threats diverse, they are also multi-dimensional and highly

interconnected with each other. Because domestic politics are highly susceptible to international politics, ruling regime’s decision on domestic issues, including the

insurgencies, cannot be free from the pressure for intervention from foreign powers who seek to take advantage of other states’ domestic instability. The multidimensionality of

11 _{However, it does not mean that it is inherently inapplicable to the studies of state’s behavior. A} group of states share common features and similar experiences that are crucial to their security. Most Western European countries share, for example, a period of an absolute monarchy and a process of nation-state building. Many of the Third World states share the experience of

colonialism and political instability after the independence. These shared history and experience make it possible to have similar patterns in their security problems and security policy decisions.

the domestic affairs of the new states born in twentieth century is the reason why we need to have an alternative approach to security, especially when we are interested in the state’s behavior. In terms of core values, the ruling regime in new states tends to

prioritize regime security. The most important value to protect is regime survival rather than a state’s overall well-being. Even if the regime insists on the protection of national values and make policy decisions in the name of national security, security decision are directly and indirectly designed to keep the regime in power (Alagappa 1987).

These differences in the meaning of security between Western countries and the new states require us to approach security issues of the latter states with a more

comprehensive perspective. We need to understand that internal instability is a major security concern of the incumbent regime, and its multidimensionality further

complicates the issue. In order to keep its power, the regime has to consider all of these aspects when making a decision. As a major security issue, civil conflict can be regarded as “an outcome of the state’s decision to eliminate or reduce insecurity of the incumbent regime by repressing internal challenges and launching military operations against them.” The regime makes a decision based on the degree of interconnectedness between internal and external dimensions of the issue.