Ishanwi Yadav, Department of Political Science, Adamas University
When Stephen Walt published “The Renaissance of Security Studies” back in 1991, the Cold War had just ended, and people around the world were trying to make sense of what security meant in this new world order. For many, including scholars, the question was whether security studies as a discipline was still relevant now that the global threat of nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR had faded. Walt answered that question with a strong “yes,” arguing that security studies was not dying it was actually experiencing a revival. As I read through Walt’s piece, I couldn’t help but appreciate his clarity and his effort to defend the value of the discipline. At the same time, reading it in 2025, when our idea of “security” has grown to include everything from pandemics to climate change, I also felt that his framework left out a lot of what we today consider to be real, urgent threats.
What Walt Got Right: Staying Grounded in Reality
Walt’s main argument was that security studies should stay focused on the study of military threats—on the “threat, use, and control of military force.” In his view, expanding the definition of security too broadly would make the field lose its shape. If everything becomes a “security issue,” then maybe nothing really is. This is a fair point. There is definitely a need for structure in academic fields, and Walt was right to want to avoid turning security studies into a vague collection of everything that’s bad in the world.
He also pointed out that even though the Cold War had ended, military conflict hadn’t disappeared. He warned against assuming that peace had permanently arrived. And looking back at the last 30 years—wars in the Middle East, tensions in the South China Sea, and now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine his warning was spot on. Walt helped remind scholars and policymakers alike that hard power still matters. Also, his call for more rigorous research based on clear hypotheses, solid data, and careful logic was important. When debates are driven only by ideology or abstract theory, it can be hard to reach conclusions that actually help us make the world safer.
Where Walt Falls Short: Security Is More Than Just Tanks and Missiles
But here’s where I started to disagree with Walt: his idea of what counts as a “security threat” felt too narrow. Today, we’re dealing with threats that don’t come from foreign armies. Think about COVID-19—millions of people died, economies collapsed, and global travel shut down, all without a single bullet being fired. Or take climate change, which is already causing deadly heatwaves, rising sea levels, and mass displacement. Can we really say these aren’t security issues just because they don’t involve soldiers? Walt dismissed what he called “radical” approaches for trying to include issues like poverty, environmental degradation, or human rights in the study of security. But to me, these are exactly the things that make people feel unsafe. If a girl in a conflict zone lives in constant fear of violence, or if a coastal community loses its land to flooding, isn’t that a threat to their security too? I think Walt’s argument reflects the realism school of thought in international relations, which focuses mostly on states, power, and military force. But today’s world is full of non-state actors—terrorist groups, multinational corporations, cyber attackers—who shape our sense of safety in major ways. We can’t keep looking at the world only through the lens of traditional state conflict.
A Case for Broader, Inclusive Security
To be fair to Walt, he wasn’t saying that things like poverty or pandemics don’t matter—just that they shouldn’t fall under the label of “security studies.” But I think that’s a mistake. By separating “hard” security from “soft” threats, we risk ignoring how interconnected they really are. For example, a country that struggles with drought and food shortages may also face civil unrest or even war. In that sense, climate change and conflict aren’t two separate issues they feed into each other. Over the years, many scholars have pushed for a more inclusive approach, like human security, which focuses not just on protecting borders but also on protecting people. Feminist perspectives in security studies have also highlighted how violence, especially against women, is often overlooked because it doesn’t fit the traditional war-focused model. These newer approaches may not always follow Walt’s strict research methods, but they offer valuable insights that help us see the bigger picture.
Security Studies Today: Walt’s Legacy and Beyond
Even though I find parts of Walt’s argument outdated, I still believe his article was an important turning point. He helped the field stay grounded at a time when it could have dissolved into confusion. He also reminded scholars that war and violence didn’t disappear just because the Cold War ended. For that, he deserves credit. But if we want security studies to stay relevant in the future, it has to evolve. It has to include the kinds of threats people face today, even if they don’t come from a tank or a missile. It needs to speak to real fears—whether that’s about getting sick during a pandemic, losing your home to a flood, or facing online harassment from political extremists.
In my opinion, the real renaissance of security studies didn’t stop where Walt drew the line—it kept going. Today, it’s a much more diverse and interdisciplinary field. That’s a good thing. The world is complicated, and our understanding of security should reflect that complexity. In the end, Walt gave us a strong foundation. But it’s up to us, the next generation of students, researchers, and policymakers, to keep building on it expanding it, questioning it, and making sure it speaks to the realities of our time.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the Jadavpur Association of International Relations (JAIR) or any of their affiliates. JAIR Learning Commons serves as a platform for academic learning and student expression and encourages diverse perspectives and critical engagement.