Vital Interests 2025-2026
Summary Lectures and Literature + Practice Questions
Lecture notes:
Week 1 – Vital Interests and the Protective State
States define themselves through their capacity to protect what they consider vital. Vital
interests refer to those values, conditions and assets that are regarded as essential for the
survival, functioning and legitimacy of a political community. These interests go beyond
physical survival and territorial integrity and include acquired values such as political
stability, economic prosperity, social cohesion, public health and the continuity of critical
systems. What makes an interest “vital” is not merely its objective importance, but the
political priority attached to it. Vital interests are therefore not fixed or universal; they are
politically constructed, historically contingent and often contested.
The modern state can be understood as a protective state whose legitimacy rests on its ability
to shield society from harm. Harm may arise from deliberate threats such as military
aggression, terrorism or cyberattacks, but also from systemic risks and unintended dangers
such as pandemics, environmental degradation or infrastructure failures. Protection is never
neutral or purely technical. It involves political choices about which risks deserve attention,
which resources are allocated, which institutions are empowered and which freedoms may be
curtailed. As a result, protection and liberty are structurally in tension.
Historically, protection was limited and reactive, focusing on defending territory and
maintaining order. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, the scope of protection
expanded dramatically. States increasingly embraced prevention and risk management, taking
responsibility for public health, sanitation, food safety, welfare and infrastructure. This
expansion reflects the growing complexity of modern societies and the recognition that many
threats are indirect, slow-moving and systemic.
Protection is deeply political because threats are framed and prioritised. Some dangers are
elevated to existential status and justify extraordinary measures, while others remain marginal
or invisible. Protection is also layered: states protect territory, populations and systems
simultaneously. Technological change, globalisation and historical experience continuously
add new layers to what security entails.
In an interconnected world, many vital interests can no longer be safeguarded by states acting
alone. Global problems such as climate change, pandemics and cyber insecurity transcend
borders. This has led to the emergence of global public goods, whose protection requires
international cooperation despite the absence of a global government. The tension between
sovereignty, national priorities and collective responsibility lies at the heart of contemporary
security politics.
,Week 2 – Power, Security and the Historical Construction of the State
Security and vital interests are not timeless concepts; they have evolved alongside changing
forms of political authority and power. Traditional approaches to international relations long
equated security with the military survival of the state, emphasising territory, sovereignty and
balance of power. Yet the state itself is a historically contingent institution, and its security
priorities have shifted accordingly.
In pre-modern Europe, political authority was grounded in divine hierarchy. God stood at the
apex, while emperors and popes exercised worldly power beneath Him. Vital interests were
closely aligned with the interests of rulers, and religious and geopolitical motivations were
deeply intertwined. The emergence of the sovereign state marked a decisive shift. Political
thinkers such as Hobbes argued that security required a central authority capable of enforcing
order and preventing violence. Sovereignty became the foundation of political order, linking
individual security to collective security.
This logic was institutionalised through the doctrine of raison d’état, which asserted the
primacy of state survival over moral or religious considerations. Political necessity justified
extraordinary actions. The Peace of Westphalia codified this principle by recognising
sovereign equality and non-interference, firmly establishing the state as the primary referent
object of security.
The rise of nationalism and the political revolutions of the late eighteenth century transformed
security once again. Sovereignty increasingly resided in “the people,” and the nation became
the central political community. Security expanded to include political legitimacy, social
cohesion and national identity. Citizens were expected to sacrifice for the nation, while the
state assumed greater responsibility for protecting the population.
In the modern era, vital interests extend far beyond military concerns. Economic stability,
health, technological resilience and infrastructure protection have become central to security.
Power is no longer exercised solely through force, but also through economic leverage,
institutional authority and the ability to define threats and priorities. Understanding security as
historically constructed reveals that vital interests are the outcome of political struggle rather
than objective necessity.
Week 3 – Framing, Agenda-Setting and the Politics of Prioritisation
Vital interests do not automatically translate into political action. They must first be
recognised, framed and placed on the political agenda. Framing refers to the process through
which issues are interpreted and presented in ways that shape how they are understood and
whether they are considered urgent or existential. Agenda-setting determines which problems
receive political attention and which are ignored or postponed.
Framing is a form of power. By portraying an issue as a security threat, political actors can
justify exceptional measures, mobilise resources and override normal procedures. This
,process, often described as securitisation, elevates certain risks above others and transforms
them into matters of survival. However, not all risks are securitised, and not all securitisations
succeed. Competing frames reflect competing interests, values and power positions.
Agenda-setting is constrained by limited political attention, institutional capacity and public
tolerance. Decision-makers must prioritise among multiple risks, often under conditions of
uncertainty. Some threats are immediate and visible, while others are long-term and abstract.
Political incentives often favour short-term crises over slow-moving dangers, even when the
latter pose greater long-term risks.
Framing and agenda-setting also determine whose interests are protected. Security policies
may privilege certain groups, sectors or states while marginalising others. As a result, the
politics of protection is inseparable from questions of inequality, legitimacy and
accountability.
Week 4 – Global Governance and Global Public Goods
Globalisation has fundamentally altered the landscape of vital interests. Many threats and
risks are no longer confined within national borders, creating problems that cannot be
effectively addressed by states acting alone. This has led to growing attention to global public
goods: goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable and whose benefits extend across
countries, populations and generations.
Examples include climate stability, global health security and a functioning international
financial system. The absence of a global government makes the provision of global public
goods particularly challenging. Collective action problems such as free riding, the tragedy of
the commons and coordination failures undermine cooperation. States may hesitate to
contribute if others can benefit without paying the costs.
Global governance refers to the institutions, rules and practices through which collective
problems are managed in this context. It relies on international organisations, regimes, norms
and informal arrangements rather than hierarchical authority. Governance mechanisms are
often layered and fragmented, involving states, international organisations, private actors and
civil society.
Global public goods highlight the tension between national sovereignty and collective
responsibility. States remain the primary political actors, yet their vital interests increasingly
depend on cooperation and compromise. This tension runs through debates on climate change,
health, cyberspace and beyond.
Week 5 – Health, Pandemics and Vital Interests
, Health has increasingly come to be understood as a vital interest because it is directly
connected to the survival, stability and functioning of societies. Historically, infectious
diseases were the primary threat to human life and a major source of social disruption.
Epidemics undermined labour forces, weakened armies, destabilised economies and
challenged political authority. As a result, health gradually moved from being a private or
local concern to becoming a central responsibility of the state.
The rise of the protective state in the nineteenth century marked a turning point. States began
to treat population health as an acquired value that needed to be safeguarded through
collective measures. Hygiene, sanitation, vaccination and disease surveillance became tools
through which states exercised what has been described as biopower: the regulation of life
processes in order to secure social order, productivity and economic growth. Health protection
was thus closely tied to state power and governance.
Pandemics, however, do more than threaten individual health. They disrupt trade, mobility,
education and political legitimacy. Large-scale outbreaks expose the vulnerability of modern
societies and can erode trust in institutions. For this reason, pandemics are often framed as
security threats rather than purely medical challenges. This securitisation of health elevates
disease outbreaks to matters of national and international urgency, justifying extraordinary
measures such as travel restrictions, emergency legislation and the suspension of civil
liberties.
At the same time, framing health as a security issue is deeply ambivalent. While it can
mobilise political attention and resources, it may also narrow policy responses, prioritising
containment and control over broader public health goals such as equity, prevention and long-
term system strengthening. Moreover, securitisation tends to privilege the interests of
powerful states, whose concerns shape global agendas.
Globalisation has fundamentally intensified pandemic risks. Increased mobility, dense
urbanisation, global trade networks and closer human–animal interaction have accelerated the
emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Health is therefore no longer a purely national
concern but a transboundary issue that links national vital interests to global interdependence.
Pandemics make visible the tension between protecting national populations and contributing
to collective global health security.
Week 6 – Pandemic Preparedness: National and Global Dilemmas
Pandemic preparedness refers to the capacity of societies to anticipate, prevent, respond to
and recover from large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. Preparedness is not limited to
medical readiness but encompasses governance structures, political decision-making, public
trust and institutional coordination. Pandemics are societal crises that affect every domain of
life, making preparedness a core element of modern state responsibility.
At the national level, preparedness requires robust public health systems, reliable surveillance,
flexible healthcare capacity and clear decision-making authority. States must be able to act
under conditions of deep uncertainty, often with incomplete data and high stakes. This creates
Summary Lectures and Literature + Practice Questions
Lecture notes:
Week 1 – Vital Interests and the Protective State
States define themselves through their capacity to protect what they consider vital. Vital
interests refer to those values, conditions and assets that are regarded as essential for the
survival, functioning and legitimacy of a political community. These interests go beyond
physical survival and territorial integrity and include acquired values such as political
stability, economic prosperity, social cohesion, public health and the continuity of critical
systems. What makes an interest “vital” is not merely its objective importance, but the
political priority attached to it. Vital interests are therefore not fixed or universal; they are
politically constructed, historically contingent and often contested.
The modern state can be understood as a protective state whose legitimacy rests on its ability
to shield society from harm. Harm may arise from deliberate threats such as military
aggression, terrorism or cyberattacks, but also from systemic risks and unintended dangers
such as pandemics, environmental degradation or infrastructure failures. Protection is never
neutral or purely technical. It involves political choices about which risks deserve attention,
which resources are allocated, which institutions are empowered and which freedoms may be
curtailed. As a result, protection and liberty are structurally in tension.
Historically, protection was limited and reactive, focusing on defending territory and
maintaining order. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, the scope of protection
expanded dramatically. States increasingly embraced prevention and risk management, taking
responsibility for public health, sanitation, food safety, welfare and infrastructure. This
expansion reflects the growing complexity of modern societies and the recognition that many
threats are indirect, slow-moving and systemic.
Protection is deeply political because threats are framed and prioritised. Some dangers are
elevated to existential status and justify extraordinary measures, while others remain marginal
or invisible. Protection is also layered: states protect territory, populations and systems
simultaneously. Technological change, globalisation and historical experience continuously
add new layers to what security entails.
In an interconnected world, many vital interests can no longer be safeguarded by states acting
alone. Global problems such as climate change, pandemics and cyber insecurity transcend
borders. This has led to the emergence of global public goods, whose protection requires
international cooperation despite the absence of a global government. The tension between
sovereignty, national priorities and collective responsibility lies at the heart of contemporary
security politics.
,Week 2 – Power, Security and the Historical Construction of the State
Security and vital interests are not timeless concepts; they have evolved alongside changing
forms of political authority and power. Traditional approaches to international relations long
equated security with the military survival of the state, emphasising territory, sovereignty and
balance of power. Yet the state itself is a historically contingent institution, and its security
priorities have shifted accordingly.
In pre-modern Europe, political authority was grounded in divine hierarchy. God stood at the
apex, while emperors and popes exercised worldly power beneath Him. Vital interests were
closely aligned with the interests of rulers, and religious and geopolitical motivations were
deeply intertwined. The emergence of the sovereign state marked a decisive shift. Political
thinkers such as Hobbes argued that security required a central authority capable of enforcing
order and preventing violence. Sovereignty became the foundation of political order, linking
individual security to collective security.
This logic was institutionalised through the doctrine of raison d’état, which asserted the
primacy of state survival over moral or religious considerations. Political necessity justified
extraordinary actions. The Peace of Westphalia codified this principle by recognising
sovereign equality and non-interference, firmly establishing the state as the primary referent
object of security.
The rise of nationalism and the political revolutions of the late eighteenth century transformed
security once again. Sovereignty increasingly resided in “the people,” and the nation became
the central political community. Security expanded to include political legitimacy, social
cohesion and national identity. Citizens were expected to sacrifice for the nation, while the
state assumed greater responsibility for protecting the population.
In the modern era, vital interests extend far beyond military concerns. Economic stability,
health, technological resilience and infrastructure protection have become central to security.
Power is no longer exercised solely through force, but also through economic leverage,
institutional authority and the ability to define threats and priorities. Understanding security as
historically constructed reveals that vital interests are the outcome of political struggle rather
than objective necessity.
Week 3 – Framing, Agenda-Setting and the Politics of Prioritisation
Vital interests do not automatically translate into political action. They must first be
recognised, framed and placed on the political agenda. Framing refers to the process through
which issues are interpreted and presented in ways that shape how they are understood and
whether they are considered urgent or existential. Agenda-setting determines which problems
receive political attention and which are ignored or postponed.
Framing is a form of power. By portraying an issue as a security threat, political actors can
justify exceptional measures, mobilise resources and override normal procedures. This
,process, often described as securitisation, elevates certain risks above others and transforms
them into matters of survival. However, not all risks are securitised, and not all securitisations
succeed. Competing frames reflect competing interests, values and power positions.
Agenda-setting is constrained by limited political attention, institutional capacity and public
tolerance. Decision-makers must prioritise among multiple risks, often under conditions of
uncertainty. Some threats are immediate and visible, while others are long-term and abstract.
Political incentives often favour short-term crises over slow-moving dangers, even when the
latter pose greater long-term risks.
Framing and agenda-setting also determine whose interests are protected. Security policies
may privilege certain groups, sectors or states while marginalising others. As a result, the
politics of protection is inseparable from questions of inequality, legitimacy and
accountability.
Week 4 – Global Governance and Global Public Goods
Globalisation has fundamentally altered the landscape of vital interests. Many threats and
risks are no longer confined within national borders, creating problems that cannot be
effectively addressed by states acting alone. This has led to growing attention to global public
goods: goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable and whose benefits extend across
countries, populations and generations.
Examples include climate stability, global health security and a functioning international
financial system. The absence of a global government makes the provision of global public
goods particularly challenging. Collective action problems such as free riding, the tragedy of
the commons and coordination failures undermine cooperation. States may hesitate to
contribute if others can benefit without paying the costs.
Global governance refers to the institutions, rules and practices through which collective
problems are managed in this context. It relies on international organisations, regimes, norms
and informal arrangements rather than hierarchical authority. Governance mechanisms are
often layered and fragmented, involving states, international organisations, private actors and
civil society.
Global public goods highlight the tension between national sovereignty and collective
responsibility. States remain the primary political actors, yet their vital interests increasingly
depend on cooperation and compromise. This tension runs through debates on climate change,
health, cyberspace and beyond.
Week 5 – Health, Pandemics and Vital Interests
, Health has increasingly come to be understood as a vital interest because it is directly
connected to the survival, stability and functioning of societies. Historically, infectious
diseases were the primary threat to human life and a major source of social disruption.
Epidemics undermined labour forces, weakened armies, destabilised economies and
challenged political authority. As a result, health gradually moved from being a private or
local concern to becoming a central responsibility of the state.
The rise of the protective state in the nineteenth century marked a turning point. States began
to treat population health as an acquired value that needed to be safeguarded through
collective measures. Hygiene, sanitation, vaccination and disease surveillance became tools
through which states exercised what has been described as biopower: the regulation of life
processes in order to secure social order, productivity and economic growth. Health protection
was thus closely tied to state power and governance.
Pandemics, however, do more than threaten individual health. They disrupt trade, mobility,
education and political legitimacy. Large-scale outbreaks expose the vulnerability of modern
societies and can erode trust in institutions. For this reason, pandemics are often framed as
security threats rather than purely medical challenges. This securitisation of health elevates
disease outbreaks to matters of national and international urgency, justifying extraordinary
measures such as travel restrictions, emergency legislation and the suspension of civil
liberties.
At the same time, framing health as a security issue is deeply ambivalent. While it can
mobilise political attention and resources, it may also narrow policy responses, prioritising
containment and control over broader public health goals such as equity, prevention and long-
term system strengthening. Moreover, securitisation tends to privilege the interests of
powerful states, whose concerns shape global agendas.
Globalisation has fundamentally intensified pandemic risks. Increased mobility, dense
urbanisation, global trade networks and closer human–animal interaction have accelerated the
emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Health is therefore no longer a purely national
concern but a transboundary issue that links national vital interests to global interdependence.
Pandemics make visible the tension between protecting national populations and contributing
to collective global health security.
Week 6 – Pandemic Preparedness: National and Global Dilemmas
Pandemic preparedness refers to the capacity of societies to anticipate, prevent, respond to
and recover from large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. Preparedness is not limited to
medical readiness but encompasses governance structures, political decision-making, public
trust and institutional coordination. Pandemics are societal crises that affect every domain of
life, making preparedness a core element of modern state responsibility.
At the national level, preparedness requires robust public health systems, reliable surveillance,
flexible healthcare capacity and clear decision-making authority. States must be able to act
under conditions of deep uncertainty, often with incomplete data and high stakes. This creates
