Founder(s)	David Albright
Type	Think tank
Founded	1993
Location	Washington, District of Columbia
Key people	David Albright
Area served	Predominantly United States of America
Focus	Nuclear nonproliferation[1]
Motto	To inform "the public about science and policy issues affecting international security".[1]
Website	www.isis-online.org

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) is a nonprofit institution to inform the public about "science and policy issues affecting international security."^[1] Founded in 1993, the group is led by founder and former United Nations IAEA nuclear inspector David Albright.^[2]

Board and funding[link]

ISIS's board consists of the following members:^[3]

David Albright- Chairman/President

Michael Rietz- Treasurer, Lawyer, private practice

John Redick- Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation

Steven Aftergood- Federation of American Scientists

Corey Hinderstein- Nuclear Threat Initiative

ISIS has been funded by:^[4] Ploughshares Fund, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Colombe Foundation, New-Land Foundation, The Prospect Hill Foundation, United States Institute of Peace, The International Atomic Energy Agency, Ford Foundation, The Scherman Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Compton Foundation, The Stanley Foundation, The John Merck Fund, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, United States Department of Energy

Staff[link]

ISIS's staff consists of the following people:^[5]

• David Albright – President and Founder of ISIS
• Paul Brannan – Senior Research Analyst
• Andrea Stricker – Research Analyst and Public Relations Assistant
• Robert Avagyan, Research Analyst
• Christina Walrond, Research Analyst
• Susan Basu – Consultant
• Mahdi Obeidi – Consultant

Focus and analysis[link]

The institute regularly publishes technical analyses of nuclear proliferation programs by examining technical data and satellite imagery. ISIS is cited in non-proliferation circles and in international media regarding its analysis. The majority of the current material produced by ISIS is focused on the analysis and monitoring of the nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and cases of worldwide illicit nuclear trade.^[6]

ISIS and Iraq[link]

In August 1991, David Albright and Mark Hibbs, writing for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists wrote that there were many technological challenges unsolved with Iraq's nuclear program. Albright and Hibbs wrote that Iraq's nuclear program "was so primitive that the international sanctions put in place after the August 2 invasion may have had more substantive effect than the tons of bombs dropped by U.S. and allied planes five months later".^[7]

David Albright made a number of comments during the lead up to and breakout of the 2003 Iraq War. In an interview with PBS several months before the start of the Iraq War he stated:^[8]

I personally believe there's plenty of evidence for biological and chemical, and there's sufficient evidence to believe that there's a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

—David Albright, PBS Interview Oct 1, 2002

In response to Iraqi aluminum tubes, Albright said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.^[9] "If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a risk of undermining the good information it possesses. In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons."^[10]

In an October 2002 posting ISIS published a report which said "One of the most significant accomplishments of the intrusive inspections mandated by UN Security Council in 1991 is that Iraq is not believed to have nuclear weapons now. This single accomplishment demonstrates both the power and value of intrusive nuclear inspections in Iraq." The report further argued that "the nuclear inspection process provided a powerful deterrent against Iraq reconstituting its nuclear weapons program until inspectors left in late 1998."^[11]

ISIS and Iran[link]

ISIS has been following the circumstances surrounding the Iranian nuclear program and has created a website dedicated to informing readers about the history of Iran's nuclear program and facilities, providing IAEA reports, providing information about diplomatic efforts, and providing ISIS technical assessments.^[12]

A June 2009 posting on ISIS argued that "we do know that a lasting, military solution to Iran’s nuclear program is not realistic. This leaves diplomacy as the best route to bring about a suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, regardless of who holds Iran’s presidency."^[13]

On October 2, 2009 ISIS posted a subject to revision working document with an unknown author which it described as an "Internal IAEA Document on Alleged Iranian Nuclear Weaponization".^[14] The document led media to report that Iran has tested a two-point implosion design.^[15] Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA’s nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction, wrote “if someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he’ll get that program through.. But that doesn’t mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon.”^[16] Outside experts noted that the parts of the report made public lack many dates associated with Iran's alleged activities.^[17] The Washington Post reported that "nowhere are there construction orders, payment invoices, or more than a handful of names and locations possibly connected to the projects."^[18] Former IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said the Agency didn't have any information that nuclear material has been used and didn't have any information that any components of nuclear weapons had been manufactured.^[19] Iran asserted that the documents were a fabrication, while the IAEA urged Iran to be more cooperative and Member States to provide more information about the allegations to be shared with Iran.^[20]

In December 2009, the conservative-leaning^[21][22] The Times, working with ISIS analysis, claimed that a document from an unnamed Asian intelligence agency described the use of a neutron source which has no use other than in a nuclear weapon, and claimed the document appeared to be from an office in Iran's Defense Ministry and may have been from around 2007.^[23][24] The Institute for Science and International Security, said that it “urges caution and further assessment” of the document and noted that "the document does not mention nuclear weapons .. and we have seen no evidence of an Iranian decision to build them.”^[25] Western intelligence agencies did not give any authentication to the document,^[25] while Russia noted that though the IAEA is in possession of these documents, the IAEA's findings "do not contain any conclusions about the presence of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran."^[26] In response to allegations that the document was forged from Iran and some within the United States,^[27][28] Albright said ISIS felt "that this document does need to be authenticated, and we welcome a debate and actually a collecting [of] information from people, people who've done linguistic analysis, inside information".^[29] Anton Khlopkov, the founding director of the Center for Energy and Security Studies, said the media leak may be being used "as a pretext for inciting the campaign against Iran."^[30]

ISIS and Myanmar[link]

In a January 28, 2010 report, ISIS found: "There remain sound reasons to suspect that the military regime in Burma might be pursuing a long-term strategy to make nuclear weapons. Despite the public reports to the contrary, the military junta does not appear to be close to establishing a significant nuclear capability. Information suggesting the construction of major nuclear facilities appears unreliable or inconclusive."^[31] During an ASEAN meeting in Thailand in July 2009, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton highlighted concerns of the North Korean link. "We know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously," Clinton said.^[32]

Reception to ISIS[link]

A National Journal profile in 2004 called Albright a “go-to guy for media people seeking independent analysis on Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] programs.”^[33]

In 2006, David Albright received the prestigious Joseph A. Burton Forum Award from the American Physical Society, a professional society of American physicists. He was cited for "his tireless and productive efforts to slow the transfer of nuclear weapons technology. He brings a unique combination of deep understanding, objectivity, and effectiveness to this vexed area.”^[33]

References[link]

External links[link]

• ISIS website
• ISISNuclearIran

Terrorism like that on September 11 is one of the concerns of international security.^{[clarification needed]}

International security consists of the measures taken by nations and international organizations, such as the United Nations, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

With the end of World War II, a new subject of study focusing on international security emerged. It began as an independent field of study, but was absorbed as a sub-field of international relations.^[1] Since it took hold in the 1950s, the study of international security has been at the heart of international relations studies.^[2] It covers labels like “security studies”, “strategic studies”, “peace studies”, and others.

There is no universal definition of the concept of security, but concepts in international security studies have been defined, such as sovereignty, war, anarchy, security dilemma, etc. The meaning of "security" is often treated as a common sense term that can be understood by "unacknowledged consensus".^[3] As there is no universal concept, the content of international security has expanded over the years. Today it covers a variety of interconnected issues in the world that have an impact on survival. It ranges from the traditional or conventional modes of military power, the causes and consequences of war between states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, science and technology, food, as well as threats to human security and the stability of states from environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and the activities of non-state actors.^[4]

While the wide perspective of international security regards everything as a security matter, the traditional approach focuses mainly or exclusively on military concerns.^[1]

Concepts of security in the international arena[link]

There is no universal definition of the concept of security. Edward Kolodziej has compared it to a Tower of Babel.^[5] Roland Paris (2004) views it as “in the eye of the beholder”.^[6] But there is a consensus that it is important and multidimensional. It has been widely applied to “justify suspending civil liberties, making war, and massively reallocating resources during the last fifty years”.^[7]

Walter Lippmann (1944) views security as the capability of a country to protect its core values, both in terms that a state need not sacrifice core values in avoiding war and can maintain them by winning war.^[8] David Baldwin (1997) argues that pursuing security sometimes requires sacrificing other values, including marginal values and prime values.^[7] Richard Ullman (1983) has suggested that a decrease in vulnerability is security.^[9]

Arnold Wolfers (1952) argues that “security” is generally a normative term. It is applied by nations “in order to be either expedient - a rational means toward an accepted end - or moral, the best or least evil course of action”.^[10] In the same way that people are different in sensing and identifying danger and threats, Wolfers argues that different nations also have different expectations of security. Not only is there a difference between forbearance of threats, but different nations also face different levels of threats because of their unique geographical, economic, ecological, and political environment.

Barry Buzan (2000) views the study of international security as more than a study of threats, but also a study of which threats that can be tolerated and which require immediate action.^[11] He sees the concept of security as not either power or peace, but something in between.^[12]

The concept of an international security actor has extended in all directions since the 1990s, from nations to groups, individuals, international systems, NGOs, and local governments.^[13]

The Multi-Sum Security Principle[link]

Traditional approaches to international security usually focus on state actors and their military capacities to protect national security. However, over the last decades the definition of security has been extended to cope with the 21st century globalized international community, its rapid technological developments and global threats that emerged out of this process. One such comprehensive definition has been proposed by Nayef Al-Rodhan. What he calls the "Multi-sum security principle" is based on the assumption that "in a globalized world, security can no longer be thought of as a zero-sum game involving states alone. Global security, instead, has five dimensions that include human, environmental, national, transnational, and transcultural security, and therefore, global security and the security of any state or culture cannot be achieved without good governance at all levels that guarantees security through justice for all individuals, states, and cultures."^[14]

Each of these five dimensions refers to a different set of substrates. The first dimension refers to human security, a concept that makes the principle referent object of security the individual, not the state. The second dimension is environmental security and includes issues like climate change, global warming, and access to resources. The third substrate refers to national security, defined as being linked to the state’s monopoly over use of force in a given territory and as a substrate of security that emphasizes the military and policing components of security. The fourth component deals with transnational threats such as organized crime, terrorism, and human trafficking. Finally, the integrity of diverse cultures and civilisational forms tackles the issue of transcultural security. According to this multi-faceted security framework all five dimensions of security need to be addressed in order to provide just and sustainable global security. It therefore advocates cooperative interaction between states and peaceful existence between cultural groups and civilizations.^[15]

Traditional security[link]

Introduction[link]

The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the Cold War. For almost half a century, major world powers entrusted the security of their nation to a balance of power among states. In this sense international stability relied on the premise that if state security is maintained, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow.^[16] Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation state.^[17] States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power.^[17] Security was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities.

As Cold War tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens was threatened by hardships arising from internal state activities as well as external aggressors. Civil wars were increasingly common and compounded existing poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human rights abuses. Traditional security policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face of state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had failed in their primary objective.^[18]

More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security.^[19] Among the approaches which seeks to acknowledge and address these basic threats to human safety are paradigms that include cooperative, comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the individual and, as a result, for the state.

To enhance international security against potential threats caused by terrorism and organized crime, there have been an increase in international cooperation, resulting in transnational policing. The international police Interpol shares information across international borders and this cooperation has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Internet and the ability to instantly transfer documents, films and photographs worldwide.

Theoretical approaches[link]

Realism[link]

Classical realism[link]

In the field of international relations, realism has long been a dominant theory, from ancient military theories of Chinese and Greek thinkers to Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau. It is the foundation of contemporary international security studies. The twentieth century classical realism is mainly derived from Edward Hallett Carr's book The Twenty Years' Crisis.^[20] The realist views anarchy and the absence of a power to regulate the interactions between states as the distinctive characteristics of international politics. Because of anarchy, or a constant state of antagonism, the international system differs from the domestic system.^[21] Realism has a variety of sub-schools whose lines of thought are based on three core assumptions: groupism, egoism, and power-centrism.^[22] According to classical realists, bad things happen because the people who make foreign policy are sometimes bad.^[23]

Neorealism[link]

Beginning in the 1960s, with increasing criticism of realism, Kenneth Waltz tried to revive the traditional realist theory by translating some core realist ideas into a deductive, top-down theoretical framework that eventually came to be called neorealism.^[22] Theory of International Politics^[24] brought together and clarified many earlier realist ideas about how the features of the overall system of states affects the way states interact:

"Neorealism answers questions: Why the modern states-system has persisted in the face of attempts by certain states at dominance; why war among great powers recurred over centuries; and why states often find cooperation hard. In addition, the book forwarded one more specific theory: that great-power war would tend to be more frequent in multipolarity (an international system shaped by the power of three or more major states) than bipolarity (an international system shaped by two major states, or superpowers)."^[25]

The main theories of neorealism are balance of power theory, balance of threat theory, security dilemma theory, offense-defense theory, hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory.

Liberalism[link]

Liberalism has a shorter history than realism but has been a prominent theory since World War I. It is a concept with a variety of meanings. Liberal thinking dates back to philosophers such as Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant, who argued that republican constitutions produce peace. Kant's concept of Perpetual Peace is arguably seen as the starting point of contemporary liberal thought.^[26]

Economic liberalism[link]

Economic liberalism assumes that economic openness and interdependence between countries makes them more peaceful than countries who are isolated. Eric Gartzke has written that economic freedom is 50 times more effective than democracy in creating peace.^[27] Globalization has been important to economic liberalism.

Liberal institutionalism[link]

Liberal institutionalism views international institutions as the main factor to avoid conflicts between nations. Liberal institutionalists argue that; although the anarchic system presupposed by realists cannot be made to disappear by institutions; the international environment that is constructed can influence the behavior of states within the system.^[28] Varieties of international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are seen as contributors to world peace.

Comparison between realism and liberalism[link]

Constructivism[link]

Since its founding in the 1980s, constructivism has become an influential approach in international security studies. “It is less a theory of international relations or security, however, than a broader social theory which then informs how we might approach the study of security.”^[30] Constructivists argue that security is a social construction. They emphasize the importance of social, cultural and historical factors, which leads to different actors construing similar events differently.

Prominent thinkers[link]

Alexander Wendt – Constructivism
Edward Hallett Carr – Classical realism
Hans J. Morgenthau – Classical realism
Immanuel Kant – Kantian liberalism
John Mearsheimer – Neorealism
Kathryn Sikkink – Constructivism
Kenneth Waltz – Neorealism
Machiavelli – Classical realism
Peter J. Katzenstein – Constructivism
Robert Axelrod – Liberal institutionalism
Robert Gilpin – Neorealism
Robert Jervis – Neorealism
Robert Keohane – Liberal institutionalism
Thomas Hobbes – Classical realism
Thucydides – Classical realism

Human security[link]

Human security derives from the traditional concept of security from military threats to the safety of people and communities.^[31] It is an extension of mere existence (survival) to well-being and dignity of human beings.^[31] Human security is an emerging school of thought about the practice of international security. There is no single definition of human security, it varies from “ a narrow term of prevention of violence to a broad comprehensive view that proposes development, human rights and traditional security together.” Critics of the concept of human security claim that it covers almost everything and that it is too broad to be the focus of research. There have also been criticisms of its challenge to the role of states and their sovereignty.^[31]

Human security offers a critique of and advocates an alternative to the traditional state-based conception of security. Essentially, it argues that the proper referent for security is the individual and that state practices should reflect this rather than primarily focusing on securing borders through unilateral military action. The justification for the human security approach is said to be that the traditional conception of security is no longer appropriate or effective in the highly interconnected and interdependent modern world in which global threats such as poverty, environmental degradation, and terrorism supersede the traditional security threats of interstate attack and warfare. Further, state-interest-based arguments for human security propose that the international system is too interconnected for the state to maintain an isolationist international policy. Therefore, it argues that a state can best maintain its security and the security of its citizens by ensuring the security of others. It is need to be noted that without the traditional security no human security can be assured.

UNDP human security proposal[link]

The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report (HDR)^[32] proposes that increasing human security entails:

• Investing in human development, not in arms;
• Engaging policy makers to address the emerging peace dividend;
• Giving the United Nations a clear mandate to promote and sustain development;
• Enlarging the concept of development cooperation so that it includes all flows, not just aid;
• Agreeing that 20 percent of national budgets and 20 percent of foreign aid be used for human development; and
• Establishing an Economic Security Council.

The report elaborates on seven components to human security. Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy list them as follows:

See also[link]

• Democratic peace theory
• Peace and conflict studies
• Violent non-state actor
• World peace

References[link]

External links[link]

• The European Union Institute for Security Studies
• Evolution in international security through the United Nations: The presentation of the Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept at the European Parliament in June 2003
• Center on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
• Center for International Security Studies

Dr. Patricia Lewis (born 1957) is a [[United Kingdom|British] and Irish] nuclear physicist and arms control expert, who is currently the Research Director for International Security at Chatham House.^[1] She was previously the Senior Scientist-in-Residence and Deputy Director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). Before her time at MIIS Patricia was the Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and the Director of VERTIC.

Dr. Lewis publishes widely on all aspects of arms control and disarmament issues and is frequently invited to speak at international conferences.

Biography[link]

A dual national of Ireland and the United Kingdom, Dr. Lewis holds a BSc in Physics from the University of Manchester and a PhD in Nuclear Structure Physics from the University of Birmingham. In 1982, she was a special assistant in the Rehabilitation Centres for Children in Calcutta, India, and from 1983–86, she lectured in physics at the University of Auckland,in New Zealand, from where she also carried out research at the Australian National University in Canberra, and as a visiting lecturer at Imperial College London. Secretary-general appoints Patricia Lewis of United Kingdom to head UN Institute for Disarmament Research</ref>

From 1986-89, Lewis was Information Officer of the London-based Verification Technology Information Centre, and its director from 1989-1997. She was the Director or the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneca 1997-2008. She was Deputy Director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California from 2008-2012. She is a recipient of the APS Joseph A. Burton Forum Award for "outstanding contributions to the public understanding or resolution of issues involving the interface of physics and society." Dr Lewis was a Commissioner on the WMD (Blix) Commission, an Advisor to the Evans-Kawaguchi International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) and a member of the Ekeus Advisory Panel on Future Priorities of the OPCW.

She has one daughter and one son.

Career[link]

VERTIC specialises in the verification of arms control and disarmament agreements (see arms control enforcement), and during her time at VERTIC Dr. Lewis became a highly-regarded expert on the subject.

During the 1988-90 negotiations on the CFE treaty, Lewis was a consultant to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the verification of conventional force reductions in Europe.^[2]

In 1989-90 Dr. Lewis was appointed British government expert to the United Nations study on the Role of the United Nations in Verification.^[3] From 1990-92 she was a visiting Lecturer at Imperial College London and was the 1992-3 Elizabeth Poppleton Fellow at the Australian National University.

She was Chair of the UK Gulf Syndrome Study Group.^[4] She was also an external reviewer for the Canberra Commission Report on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and a member of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament 1998-99.^[5] From 2004 to 2006, Dr Lewis was a Commissioner on the Weapons of Mass Destructions Commission [1], chaired by Dr Hans Blix. Currently Dr Lewis is an Advisor to the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND).^[6] Dr Lewis recently served on the American Physical Society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA)study on Technical Steps to Support Nuclear Arsenal Downsizing" ^[7]

Dr Lewis is the recipient of the American Physical Society’s 2009 Joseph A. Burton Forum Award recognizing "outstanding contributions to the public understanding or resolution of issues involving the interface of physics and society."

Affiliations[link]

Lewis is a Fellow of the British-American Project and a member of Scientists for Global Responsibility. ]

External links[link]

• Chatham House
• UNIDIR
• VERTIC
• Patricia Lewis: the risk of nuclear proliferation at Interactive Essays - War in Iraq (BBC)

Notes[link]