International security is a complex and contested concept, heavily laden with values and judgments. For centuries, however, it was linked to the study of war, military strategy and alternatives to the use of force as an instrument of policy. While few would be likely to dispute these examples as issues of security, many would now extend its meaning to other values and interests. They would apply the term to environmental damage, hunger, and protection of human rights. But where do we draw the line in studying international security? What should be included or excluded? Has international security changed in such a way that we now need to re-define the concept? This article argues that in today’s post-Cold War world, we seem to have included so much in our definition of security that that we have posed the problem in ways that impede our quest for knowledge. Furthermore, international security, traditionally defined, has suffered few changes since the collapse of the Cold War; thus, there seems to have been more continuity than global change.