Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/13067
The purpose of this thesis is to ask whether Iceland should form an economic security strategy: and if so, whether economic affairs should be explicitly securitized. It begins by
defining the term "economic security", and Iceland’s situation in the wake of an economic crisis in 2008 is compared with the position and reaction of Finland which went through similar difficulties in the nineties. Realism, liberalism and marxism are key theories in international relations and help explain the different approaches of groups and states when it comes to economic affairs. In this case, the comparison between Iceland and Finland is further illuminated by theories on human security and constructivism, small state theories and globalization.
The conclusion is that it is important for Iceland to form a long-term national security strategy and it must be reviewed regularly to account for changes in the international arena.
Icelanders can look to Finland as an example of how they should do it, as these nations have many relevant features and challenges in common. Economic affairs must be an integral part of such a strategy because of their importance to the human and societal security of Iceland.
It is not advisable, however, to explicitly securitize the nation’s economic affairs, as that could paralyze the critical debate which is a cornerstone of real security. Society must reach a broad bi-partisan consensus in the shaping and implementing of a national security strategy, and the roles of actors must be clear. Iceland can also learn from Finland how to use international organizations to strengthen its security and advance its interests.