OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020)
December 2021
160
THE LIBERAL VIEWS AND THE PROGRESS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF
SECURITY
LUÍS VALENÇA PINTO
lvpinto@autonoma.pt
He is an Army General. During his military career, he held, among many others, the functions of
Chief of Staff General of the Armed Forces, Chief of Staff of the Army, Commander of Army
Logistics, Director of the National Defence Institute, National Representative at the Allied
Headquarters (SHAPE/NATO), Commander of the Practical School of Engineering and Adviser in
the Portugal Delegation to NATO and WEU. He was also professor of Strategy and Geopolitics at
the Institute of Higher Military Studies. He is a visiting full professor at Universidade Autónoma
de Lisboa (Portugal) and an integrated researcher of OBSERVARE. He is the author of around one
hundred studies, book chapters and articles on Security and Defence and a lecturer in several
institutions, in Portugal and abroad.
Abstract
Over the last two centuries, the progress on the understanding of war determined the
evolution of the concept of security. The ideas related to liberalism were influential for that
purpose. Over that period, it was possible to examine the notions of war, strategy, and
security, and to deepen the understanding of their models. In what concerns security, there
has been an evolution from national security to collective security and to the current model
of cooperative security, attentive to the human dimension and containing the ideas of liberty,
democracy and liberalism.
Keywords
War, Security, Liberalism, People, Cooperation
How to cite this article
Valença Pinto, Luís (2021). The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of
security. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL12 N2, TD1 - Thematic dossier
200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021. Consulted [online] in date of
the last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0121.9
Article received on em June 15, 2021 and accepted for publication on November 10, 2021
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
161
THE LIBERAL VIEWS AND THE PROGRESS ON THE
UNDERSTANDING OF SECURITY1
LUÍS VALENÇA PINTO
“… if anyone ever proclaimed the most absolute of truths,
he couldn't do it,
everything is interwoven in supposition”
Aristophanes, quoted by Karl Popper in In Search of a Better World
Introduction
It is never correct or realistic to reduce manifestly transcendent ideas to a single concept,
nor to enclose them in this insufficient and reductive perspective.
Even so, and seeking to identify what is at the heart of the issue examined here, it will
be acceptable to simplify the attempt to understand liberal ideas as having Man as their
first cause and ultimate objective.
Also and quite rightly, today we see that people are, or are intended to be, at the centre
of the contemporary understanding of security. Even if they are not their only references.
The question that motivates this text is rooted in this double understanding: what
influence did the liberal views have and still have on the evolution of the understanding
of security?
A foundation for the relationship between Liberalism and Security?
A first observation is that the concepts of liberalism and security have not always been
intertwined. Nor could it be otherwise.
It is not disputed that the imperative of security and the corresponding notion long
preceded the liberal drive, as it has manifested itself in recent centuries.
One could make very interesting considerations relating to historically more remote
times, but the objective of this essay is focused on the two most recent centuries.
This paper does not take into account the relevant contributions of cultures different from
those of the Western World, since the liberalism movement occurs in the Western world.
1
\Article translated by Carolina Peralta.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
162
In a closer historical way, it is reasonable to identify two fundamental references for the
progress of the liberal ideas.
The first is to recognize that, although the idea of liberalism dates back to the dawn of
the Enlightenment, it was fundamentally with the ideas of John Locke that liberal theories
gained substance and support. This is why John Locke (1632-1704) is seen by many as
the father of liberalism. The theses he wrote greatly contribute to this interpretation,
namely regarding the social contract and tolerance. It is Locke's idea, so central to this
reflection, that peace must be based on free and equal men (Locke, 1689)2.
For him, men are born in possession of natural rights, in a state of nature characterized
by peace and harmony. The realities of collective life, however, lead to the need for
regulatory practices. So, the political organization of society and therefore the state,
based on the free choice of men, translates into a social pact (Mello, 2000: 85).
Without ignoring the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution, the second great
reference for the affirmation and expansion of liberal ideas is found in the French
Revolution. It was this revolution, in particular with the thinking that inspired it and
marked its initial phase, that, in terms of significant impact on society, consolidated and
expanded a particularly strong source of liberal ideas. Consistent and repeated, these
ideas were winds of history and blew through many geographies.
That is why the post-French Revolution period, the Contemporary Age, is the time when,
with more propriety, one can try to identify and understand the relationship between
liberal ideas and security.
Understanding Security
The idea of security is as old as man, first from the perspective of mere individual survival
and then progressively extending its scope to the protection of family, clan and tribe.
Within its scope, security corresponds to a political and public practice arising from the
need to regulate collective life. In its nature, it is an indispensable condition for social
life. Barry Buzan understood security as a special kind of politics or above politics (Buzan
et al, 1997: 23).
However, it is less important to define precisely the concept of security than to realize its
need and identify the ways that build, promote and sustain it.
Naturally, the various security formulas arise from and meet the moral, historical,
political and strategic contexts in which they are inscribed (Pinto, 2013: 806). As a
regulatory practice of a collective nature, security was structured from the perspective
of the other, the one seen and feared as a potential aggressor.
When the tribe evolved to the nation, the security building model continued to be
basically that. From a more collective and therefore more political perspective, the
aggressor, or simply the potential aggressor, began to be seen as the enemy. The model,
starting to be associated with the state, was called national security.
2 Locke, John. Second Treatise on Civil Government, ed. Abril Cultural, São Paulo, 1978.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
163
The objectives of this security, now of a state centred nature, remained essentially the
same, only extended to the dimension of the nation and politically translated by the
values of defending national independence, asserting sovereignty and preserving
territorial integrity.
It was a binary formula. Us and others. The understanding of power that centuries later
was conceptually expounded and that continues to maintain pertinence and legitimacy,
although no longer exclusively, has its foundation here. Power was perceived as the
ability to impose one's own will on the will of others.
Security, war and strategy
If there is an enemy, even if only a potential one, war is presupposed. At least the risk
and probability of war. And if this equation contains two opposing wills, both intelligent
and both political in nature, the picture is that of a characteristic exercise of strategy.
The correlation between the ideas of war, strategy and security is based on this, in its
genesis and, in particular, with regard to the evolution of the understanding that, in
relation to each one of them, has been asserted.
Historically, it was more than a correlation. It had aspects of manifest syncretism. In
fact, for many centuries, basically since Ancient Greece, war and strategy were ideas that
were hardly dissociable. This also means that throughout this long journey, strategy was
perceived as something only related to the military context.
It was only in the first half of the 19th century that war in the Western World was viewed
as something much more vast and complex than an exclusively military process. This
tremendous conceptual leap was linked to the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz, made public
in 1832 with the publication of his monumental treatise “On War”.
It would not be appropriate to relate Clausewitz directly to liberal ideas. Still, in his work,
Clausewitz reflected his experience and observation as an active participant in the
European campaigns of the Napoleonic period and immediately afterwards. The book
shows an understanding of the organization of society and the state marked by the
influence of the liberal ideas.
For the first time in the Western world, the war, despite the presence of violence and its
dramatic consequences, lost its character of a “chess game in an indefinite and almost
abstract environment”, linked to will of the sovereign. War became seen as an integral
phenomenon of a political, economic and social context. War became a public thing,
concerning the nation and society as a whole, not just the military.
Clausewitz was adamant in subordinating war to politics. In this light, he made explicit
precepts hitherto never clearly formulated.
Taken together, these precepts defined and regulated war in new and radically different
ways, emphasizing that war is an instrument of politics, which does not have its own
objectives or logic, but rather seeks to satisfy the purposes of politics in obedience and
coherence with the logic of that same politics. A logic that must therefore guide strategic
action, understood as merely military, and that must have peace as its purpose, thus
evidencing peace as the true objective of war (Clausewitz, 1976).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
164
This unprecedented and so different vision marked an extraordinary moment of rupture.
However, despite this new and challenging approach, the concepts of strategy and
security remained intertwined for a long time.
Both have fully gained the dimension of public practices, concerning the social group and
the state and governed by the superior value and responsibility of politics.
The foundation of this situation of interpenetration of the two concepts is found in the
convergence and even the overlapping of two main aspects. Security was based on and
almost exclusively confined to the military dimension, and the means available for
strategic action were fundamentally military.
It took time for the two concepts to become separated. As a reference, human beings
were present and decisively important in both evolutions.
It was only in the first half of the 20th century that it was better understood that, in order
to serve the objectives of politics well, strategy needed to use all available resources.
Those of a material nature, of which the military were only a few, and also the intangible
ones, of a moral nature (Hart, 1991: 322).
When strategy opened up to dimensions such as economic, social, cultural and
psychological, society as a whole, and with it people, were brought to the heart of
strategic action.
The consequent need to ensure the good and useful use of all these dimensions in
conjunction and simultaneously with the use of the military dimension, made the tutelary
and regulatory function of politics much more salient, both as a definition of purposes,
but also as a guide and as an indispensable instrument for controlling action. And it is
worth noting the obligatory human intervention in the domain of politics.
On the other hand, the call, both for the axis and for the praxis of the strategy, of
intangible resources, such as morality, will or patriotism, all values with origin and
repercussion on human beings, accentuated the new importance that from the first half
of the 20th century onwards, was given to the value and role of man.
Recent evolution of Security models
It was only later that the trajectory of the idea of security had a new significant
development, towards the human. This resulted from the natural and obligatory
dependence of security regarding the political and strategic context where it belongs and
should serve.
Basically, the classic paradigm of security oriented towards issues relating to
independence, sovereignty and the maintenance of territory remained unchanged until
the end of the Cold War. Only modified by very demanding circumstances that were
revealed and confirmed, it was understood that national security would be better ensured
in a collective framework, bringing together allies and partners around common values,
objectives and mutual commitments. However, it was a basically an instrumental change.
In its foundations, the idea of collective security, which in some way was tried after World
War I and which had a clear consecration after World War II, did not and does not differ
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
165
from the national security model. This is with regard to its objectives, the identification
of threats and the type of resources it mobilizes.
In both national security and collective security, man is a reference, albeit only implicit.
In both, the concern with affirming and preserving freedom is present, an indispensable
condition for the dignified and responsible existence of people.
In the post-Cold War environment, all this held up. Both within the framework of states
and within the framework of international organizations that include security into their
responsibilities. It would be strange if it were not so. But many of the defining parameters
of security underwent and still undergo a considerable evolution.
It is no longer focused on a potential enemy and cooperation was identified as
inestimable. It was realized that, in addition to the classic expression of coercion, which
is more and more difficult to affirm, power also expressed itself through influence and
even attractiveness. Insecurity was related to exclusion. To the military vector as a pillar
of security and now of equivalent importance, others were added, such as the diplomatic,
economic, social and cultural aspects. All of them are the remit of political action, as a
way to guarantee that their action, although different in nature, is convergent with the
objectives and equally coherent and coordinated.
It was also perceived that it was not possible to ignore the intensely communicational
character of the current time. It was understood that it was even positive to use it in the
identification and construction of solutions likely to receive a favourable reception when
exposed to political and public scrutiny, thus becoming more in line with ethics and, from
a pragmatic viewpoint, more sustainable.
The classical objectives remained unchanged and maintained their natural and
outstanding consecration in the multiple constitutional frameworks, but to them were
added concerns with the safeguarding of people's lives, values, rights and goods.
This new notion, fundamentally characterized by the multidimensionality of actions and
the search for cooperation, is called cooperative security (Pinto, 2013: 808).
This formula, now and explicitly, has people at its centre, both as active subjects and as
an object of security.
That is why we often see this security model being also referred to as human security.
However, it would be more appropriate to call it cooperative security and give it a strong
human dimension, attentive to the imperatives of people, whether in terms of their
inherent dignity, or in the multiple aspects of their material conditions of life, such as
nutrition, education, health or basic infrastructure. There is a clear articulation of security
with development and well-being, a link between these two primary and permanent
goals.
Once again, the paths of liberal ideas and security cross, inviting an interpretation that
is based on the recognition that, also with regard to security, “Man is seen as an end and
not as a means”, like in Immanuel Kant’s idea (1724-1804)3.
3 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (9th edition), published by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation,
Lisbon, 2013.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
166
The focus on man also means that the ultimate goal of cooperative security is of the win-
win type, thus moving away from the logic of national and collective security which, quite
naturally, is win-lose (Mihalka, 2001: 3).
This latest formula is not binary, but composite, involving multiple actors. It is also a
formula whose management is not intended to be hierarchical, sectorial or segmented,
but rather through a network, giving operational meaning to the interconnectedness that
characterizes today’s world and which is expected to be strengthened in the future.
Security models today
What is happening in the world today is the natural coexistence of the three basic models
of security: national, collective and cooperative.
The requirements of national security are not disposable and the most effective way to
observe them is collectively. Hence, the cooperative formula is progressively asserting
itself, either because the political and strategic circumstances so recommend and allow
it, or because its foundations are gaining increasing support.
Never losing sight of national security, this "broadband" security corresponds to the view
that what is most widely practiced today corresponds to collective security against
nobody and cooperative security with all who want to promote and practice it (Pinto;
2013: 808).
As it is natural, the dependence on the political and strategic context determines that the
content and intensity of this triple understanding of security differs according to the
different geopolitical spaces.
Liberal vision multilateralism and security validation
It is also worth remembering that, regardless of the model followed, security objectives
have a reinforced validity when they emanate from political wills whose legitimizing
matrix is liberal, is constitutionally enshrined and benefits from public scrutiny. Under
this more demanding framework, visions and decisions, even if perhaps more difficult to
affirm, become particularly robust.
At international level, this observation invites reflection on the type of regulatory
instruments that can best stimulate a legitimate, adequate and understood security
agenda.
From this perspective, the liberal vision that has influenced multilateralism appears again
as a privileged potentiating factor. Especially if we refer to the vision that prevailed in
the post-Cold War and if we remove the so-called neo-liberal and economic perspectives
that, particularly at the beginning of this period, were also asserted.
However, it is necessary to work on a renewed and deeper multilateralism that
emphasizes the focus on people and which, without failing to recognize competition,
opposition and political and strategic disturbances, tries to move away from the
geopolitics of power, centred on competition or on political and strategic antagonism.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
167
The renewal and deepening of the multilateralism that we know so far must include the
recognition of the existence of other relevant actors, in addition to states and
international organizations. The presence on the present international political and
strategic scene of large transnational corporations, churches, media operators, regions,
city networks, NGDOs and people is an undeniable fact. However, so far these other
actors have not been sufficiently called upon to constructively contribute to global
agendas and to commit to them.
In addition to opening up to new actors, it will also be important for a renewed
multilateralism to recognize and observe the scope of security, thus taking as a
fundamental norm that security cannot be promoted and built against people and without
people. This is a principle that power geopolitics theories do not follow nor wish to follow.
If the lucidity and determination to follow this path of refreshing and deepening
multilateralism with correct liberal inspiration prevails in the world, it will be easier to
find solutions that better satisfy such essential values as freedom and democracy. And
they will better support a more humane, more equitable and more legitimate security
(Guterres, 2020).
It will not be a simple exercise.
From an immediate perspective, the mental constructions linked to power geopolitics
suggest that they contain great evidence, served by many indicators and abundant
statistics that seek to extract unquestionable trends and conclusions.
However, a closer, more ambitious and more demanding look points out that we need to
bear in mind that the world agenda faces very important challenges. They include those
related to the environment, climate change, pandemic control, risk of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, cyberspace, technological
progress and the possibilities and risks that are anticipated from it, unregulated
migratory movements, crises of representative democracy and of the market economy,
hunger, systemic scarcity of resources, poverty and the persistence of broad
underdeveloped areas.
These are challenges that, due to their nature, go beyond the simple scale of priorities
and that should be labelled as existential.
It is impossible not to recognize that all of this calls for more cooperation and less
competition, and for an agenda for promoting, building and sustaining local, regional and
global security as an individual and collective value.
The relevance and urgency of these challenges outweighs the considerations made about
the risks underlying both models, power geopolitics and multilateral cooperation.
The approaches that have informed the United Nations Human Development Reports are
based on these lines and on the identification of possibilities and limitations found in the
political, economic and social fields, with a view to making it possible to promote and
sustain security that matters to people (Rezende, 2016: 307)4.
4 In the United Nations Development Plan (UNDP), seven dimensions of human security are considered:
economic, food, health, environmental, personal, political, and community.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
168
Proposals and the construction of political and practical solutions are expected. They
should cover the plurality of contemporary life, including new threats and risks, and be
able to bring together all the actors of the international society.
The multilateral approach, renewed, valued, and certainly much more demanding, is the
only one whose nature and inherent objective will allow us to follow this path and thus
serve the common and superior purposes of humanity. It is a multilateralism that brings
results to the people it aims to serve (Guterres, 2020).
Final considerations
Although it is not realistic to establish direct causal relationships between the values and
proposals of liberalism and the understanding of security, it is a fact that the notion of
security, and in particular its more recent evolution, has been inspired and influenced by
values intrinsic to the liberal view.
Two circumstances define the matrix of this relationship. On the one hand, the
increasingly liberal nature of the political and strategic context and, on the other, the
growing correlation and subordination of security to this context. There are also two
aspects where this is particularly manifest and decisive.
One concerns the modern centrality of people in the security framework, either as actors
or as an object. The second has to do with understanding security as an indispensable,
permanent and very relevant public policy which, as such and to be entirely legitimate,
lacks validation, regulation, scrutiny and inspection by society. The contemporary
purposes of a security attentive to the human dimension, particularly oriented towards
the political, economic and social dimensions of life, which in recent decades have been
promoted, namely by the United Nations, are a clear paradigm. This paradigm will be
better served by a renewed multilateralism, associating all the actors of international
society and covering the plurality of today’s threats and risks.
Understanding, building and maintaining global security from this human perspective
means choosing to have people at the centre of the action, to encourage freedom and
inclusion and, consequently, to promote a fair and true peace.
References
Balzacq, Thiérry (2011). A Theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions and
variants, in Balzacq, Thiérry. Securitization Theory: how Security problems emerge and
dissolve. Milton Park: Routledge
Buzan, Barry (1983). People, States and Fear: the National Security Problem in
International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsleaf Books
Buzan, Barry (1997). Ole Weaver and Jaap de Wide, Security: a new framework for
analysis, Lynne Rienner, Boulder
Clausewitz, Carl von (1976). Da Guerra. Lisbon: ed Perspectivas & Realidades
Guterres, António (2020). Speech at the United Nations, New York, 27 June
Hart, Basil (1991). Strategy. London: Meridian Books
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL12 N2, TD1
Thematic dossier – 200 years after the Revolution (1820-2020), December 2021 pp. 159-168
The liberal views and the progress on the understanding of Security
Luís Valença Pinto
169
Kaunert, Christian and Yabukovo, Ikron (2018). Securitization. Milton Park: Routledge
Martins, Raúl F (1992). Subsídios para a introdução a uma Teoria da Segurança e da
Defesa Nacional, in Nação e Defesa no 64, Lisbon: IDN
Mello, Leonel I. A (2000). John Locke e o individualismo liberal, in Francisco Weffort
(org), Os clássicos da Política. São Paulo: Ática
Mihalka, Michael (2001). Cooperative Security. From Theory to Practice, in The Marshall
Center Papers, no. 3, Garmisch- Partenkirchen
Monteforte, Ferdinando S (2007). Strategy and Peace. Rome: Aracne, Rome
Rezende, Maria José (2016). Os Relatórios de Desenvolvimento Humano das Nações
Unidas e as condições atuais de ambivalência, in Política & Trabalho, Revista de Ciências
Sociais, no. 45. São Paulo: ANPOCS
UNDP (2020). Human Development Report 2020. United Nations, New York: UNDP
Valença Pinto, Luís (2013). As novas vias da segurança. Cooperação, Parcerias e
Multidimensionalidade, in Revista Militar, no. 2541, Lisbon
Varnagy, Tomás (2006). O pensamento politico de John Locke e o surgimento do
liberalismo, in Atílio Boron, Filosofia política moderna. De Hobbes a Marx. São Paulo:
Clacso
Vilela, Francy J. F. (2014). O liberalismo político de John Locke. Brazil: Pandora
Waever, Ole, Aberystwyth (2004). Paris and Copenhagen: New schools, in Ole Waever,
Security Theory and their origins between core and periphery, International Studies
Association meeting, Montreal
Williams, Michael C (2011). Securitization and the Liberalism of fear; in Security Dialogue
42, Oslo
