RSCT posits that international security should be examined from a regional perspective, and that relations between states (and other actors) exhibit regular, geographically clustered patterns.
[2] RSCT posits that actors' actions and motivations in the field of international security are heavily regional in character.
This is in opposition to a view – predominant during the Cold War – that sees security politics as largely a reflection of global great power interests.
This relative autonomy was revealed by the ending of the Cold War, when enmities such as that between Israel and Syria, and Iraq and the Gulf Arab States, easily survived the demise of a superpower rivalry that had supported, but not generated, them.
Buzan and Wæver's view of security as a social construct means that things such as culture and history can have significant influence on actors’ perceptions.
Buzan and Wæver describe their work as a sort of extension of the monolithic neorealist school of international relations, "incorporating" it, while also filling in perceived theoretical gaps.
They stress the importance of adopting a regional perspective (as opposed to the predominant global system one) and paying more attention to security actors other than states.
[2] The conception of security not as an objective fact, but as an intersubjectively constructed social phenomenon is the mainstay of the Copenhagen school of IR.