security dilemma: a standalone construct

John H. Herz introduced the term in 1950 in the journal World Politics, describing how groups living under anarchy, meaning a system with no authority standing above the individual states, must see to their own safety, and how the steps one group takes to feel more secure, such as building up arms, make its neighbours feel less secure and prompt them to arm in turn. Robert Jervis gave the concept its seminal modern treatment in 1978, also in World Politics, showing that this spiral can arise even between states that have no wish to attack one another, purely as a byproduct of each side guarding itself. Jervis added that the severity of the dilemma varies: it eases when defensive weapons and postures can be told apart from offensive ones and when defence holds the advantage, and it worsens when the two cannot be distinguished. The construct is distinctive in explaining conflict that no party intends, tracing arms races and mutual mistrust to the structure of a self-help system rather than to the aggression or bad faith of any single actor.[1][2]

Unit

A security relationship between two or more states or groups under anarchy, analysed at the level of their interaction rather than a single actor

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Identified in historical case studies and formal models by tracing whether one actor's defensive measures reduce others' security and trigger reciprocal arms buildups, often modelled with the Prisoner's Dilemma and with offence-defence variables