the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

institutionalisation 93and the Oxford University Strategic Studies Group in 1971. The InternationalSecurity Studies section of the International Studies Association(ISA) was also set up in 1971, the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabadin 1973, the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies in 1976, and the Centerfor Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University and the Center forStrategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, both in 1977. In Geneva, the Programmefor Strategic and International Security Studies was started in1978 as part of the Graduate Institute of International Studies. In the US,a National Defense University was formed in 1976 by the merger of earlierprogrammes and in 1984 this created its own research arm, the Institutefor National Strategic Studies. Johns Hopkins University formalised itsStrategic Studies programme in 1980 and the Committee on InternationalSecurity Studies of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences began tofunction during the late 1980s. A benchmark for how widely and deeplyISS had become institutionalised by the late 1980s was the establishmentin 1987 of Women in International Security (WIIS) based in GeorgetownUniversity and dedicated to increasing the influence of women in foreignand defence affairs. It has subsequently expanded to 1,400 members –women and men – in over thirty-five countries from academia, thinktanks,the diplomatic corps, the intelligence community, the military, government,non-governmental organisations, international organisations,the media and the private sector (http://wiis.georgetown.edu/about/ –accessed 2 January 2007).Think-tanks and foundations also played a crucial role in supportingthe birth and Cold War evolution of Strategic Studies. Some think-tanksundertook work that fell squarely within ISS itself, with RAND and theIISS being the most prominent examples. Others were significant in thatthey sponsored academic programmes and university centres. As notedin chapter 3, foundations and think-tanks are often listed along a Liberal–Conservative ideological spectrum, and as a rough general rule, Conservativeinstitutions would be stronger supporters of conventional StrategicStudies, while Liberal institutions have, relatively speaking, been moregenerous in their funding of Peace Research, Arms Control and, fromthe early 1980s, programmes devoted to the rethinking of the conceptof security itself. That said, some foundations bridged these divides byproviding support for Strategic Studies as well as for Peace Research andArms Control. Think-tanks and foundations differed and differ furthermorein how explicitly ideologically they conceive of themselves with, forinstance, the American Enterprise Institute and the John M. Olin Foundationtaking an explicitly political–normative position, while others such