Human Security and National Security
Content
International Security Studies: Can
human security and state-centric
security be reconciled conceptually
and in practice? If so how?
Introduction
For at least 10 years, practitioners and scholars have increasingly
utilized the phrase “human security” to imply a new human-centric
security instead of the traditional state-centric approach to security.
Despite its increasing application, especially in United Nations policy
statements, foreign policies of countries, teaching curriculum and
scholarly journals, the notion of human security is increasingly becoming a
subject of contention. Further, a subject of contention is the significance of
the conventional state-centric security in addressing the agenda of
contemporary security (United Nations, 2011). In the field of security
studies and international relations, thoughts regarding these dissimilar
security conceptualizations have led to numerous rationalizations for their
respective
viewpoints
(Buzan,
to
2000).
examine
However,
whether
or
not
these
their
different
conceptualizations
fail
security
conceptualizations
affect the general conceptualization of security.
Another way of posing the question is whether or not human-centric and
state security can be reconciled to produce a new paradigm towards
security. This paper argues that the two security paradigms can be
reconciled conceptually and in practice using elements of both statecentric and human centric security paradigms. The new security paradigm
involves two referent objects, which include the state and people,
between the external and internal threats affecting these referent objects
and the diverse means used for improving the security of the state and
people. The new security paradigm also entails constitutive connections
between state and people. Recent scholarly works provide conceptual
proof for this argument. Further, some agents of security such as states,
global institutions and non state actors offer empirical evidence to support
this argument. This paper also makes a case that there are potential
problems associated with this new paradigm; however, the new synthesis
between human-centric and state-centric security provides a solution to
the mounting number of problems affecting the agenda of contemporary
security.
The primary significance of reconciling the concepts and practices of
human-centric and state-centric security is that, under the existing
circumstances, the integration of the elements of different security
paradigms is the most probable means of improving the security of
people. The current societal discourse is characterized by dangerous and
unending intrastate, interstate, and transnational security issues. The
cease of the Cold War did not impose a lasting peace (United Nations,
2011). In the current global discourse, the state is a dominant actor, which
translates to the dominance of state-centric security and sovereignty.
Further, there is an emergent utilitarian and normative imperative to offer
improved security to people. The implication from this observation is that
a single security paradigm cannot meet the objectives of contemporary
security agenda.
Review of Human-Centric and State-Centric Security
In the field of security studies and international relations,
discussions centering on security deploy a conceptual framework referring
to the “referent object” of security, “threats” affecting the referent object,
and the “means” deployed by the referent objects to prevent threats.
Traditionalists consent that the referent object mainly centers on the
state. The threat involves other states having the capacity and intention
to deploy force to attain their objectives whereas means of addressing
these threats include military deterrence and use of force in the event of
an imminent attack. Traditionalists consent that the meaning of security
has not changed much over time, and they oppose the security
conceptualization of human security that is altering their view.
Advocates for state-centric security criticize human-centric security from
different perspectives. Many traditionalists are of the view that there are
no sufficient grounds to make human security a referent object of security.
For instance, Buzan (2000) is refutes the view that human security should
supplement or replace state security as a referent object. Buzan maintains
that the individual causes the issue of agency because, in practice, human
security tries to bypass the state, which is necessary, although not
sufficient to guarantee each person’s security. Further, Buzan points out
that human security is not a new phenomenon because human rights law
is already focusing on the issue of human security. For state-centric
security advocates, human security entails the collectiveness of people
manifested in the form of nations, which is a short route towards national
security. An analysis of the state-centric view reveals that the utilization of
force, the characteristic of the state, and the state’s power is not
influenced
by
the
relations
between
various
states.
Therefore,
traditionalists consent that attempting to make individuals as a referent
object of security is flawed theoretically and empirically. It is evident that
the state-centric security focuses on international relations and the nature
of states to determine what makes up a referent object of security;
however, it disregards what takes place inside the state and the ideologies
of social justice that function at domestic levels. Other critics of the
human-centric approach to security such as Khong (2001) and Roland
(2001) assert that the notion of human security fails to offer practical
guidance in the eradication of human insecurity.
The arguments in support of human-centric security draw on critical
security
studies
and
the
school
of
thought
that
questions
the
traditionalist’s approach to security. Critical security scholars widen their
understanding of security to include three axes, with the first axis
broadening the narrow traditionalist’s view of security to include other
threats to the state such as environmental, economic and uncontrolled
populations. The second axis incorporates other security referents such as
individual security, global security, and societal and regional security. The
third axis advocates for cooperation between various security actors using
collective, collaborative and comprehensive security means (World Bank ,
2011). Advocates of human-centric security criticize the traditional model
on account that it does acknowledge the human-centric dimensions of
security. From an international relations point of view, the most vital
features of human-centric security are that it rectifies state-centric
security and supplements the much required normative dimension. The
state-centric perspective argues that the state is the main referent
security object and that threats come from physical violence in outside
states. On the contrary, human-centric security maintains that human
beings are the main referent security objects and threats come from nonmilitary sources inside the state. Advocates of human-centric security
challenge state-centric security using the frameworks of the development
perspective, wherein human security must involve protecting people from
the hurtful disruptions of underdevelopment found within countries (World
Bank , 2011). An example is the role that poverty plays in causing
domestic conflicts that lead to human insecurity. The second critic of the
state-centric security makes use of the humanitarian perspective, wherein
the state-centric security does not provide direct support for humanitarian
international
law.
The
humanitarian
perspective
cites
the
close
relationship between human security and human security, which serves to
rectify the state-centric security paradigm.
The Suggested Ideal Security Paradigm
It is evident from the above critiques that both human-centric and
state-centric approaches are necessary but not sufficient to address the
contemporary issues affecting human security. Therefore, the ideal
security paradigm should comprise of various elements derived from each
of the paradigms, whereby people and state act as referent objects of
security and threats come from both external and internal dimensions
including
underdevelopment
issues.
In
addition,
an
ideal
security
paradigm must embrace a broad range of measures to tackle the
aforementioned
threats
(United
Nations,
2011).
The
fundamental
argument is that there is an interaction between state-centric and humancentric security models, which implies that an ideal security model should
integrate elements acquired from the individual security paradigms.
A new synthesis of an ideal human security uses the dual aspects of both
state-centric and human-centric security. It is essential to acknowledge
that security entails both the state and people. State security involves the
defense of territorial integrity and self determination. Security of people
involves guaranteeing the safety and survival of human beings from
harms of physical violence. Dual approach to security is a perfect solution
to the increasing cases of spill over conflicts arising from domestic
problems. This integrated approach to security ensures the protection of
human rights universally while at the same time protecting the existence
of states. It is important to eliminate the antagonism between human
security and state security; instead, they should be considered as a
continuum with each reinforcing the effectiveness of the other. Another
element of the suggested security paradigm is the integration of means of
dealing with security threats emanating from both outside and inside the
state (United Nations, 2011). This requires the use of development,
humanitarian principles and force. Empirically, a number of states and
global institutions have endorsed the view that the state and people are
referent objects of security. For instance, the United Nations is one of the
chief supporters of human-centric security model. In addition, most
countries are increasingly incorporating human-centric security in their
state-centric foreign policies.
Conclusion
In the current global discourse, the notion of security is changing
persistently. One of the primary causes for this change in security trends
is terrorism; as a result, counterterrorism methods should incorporate
both human-centric and state-centric means. The inference is that there is
the need to balance between state-centric and human-centric security.
The suggested ideal security paradigm involves two main referent objects,
which include the state and people, between the external and internal
threats affecting these referent objects and the diverse means used for
improving the security of the state and people. As a result, addressing
security issues requires the use of development, humanitarian principles
and force.
References
Buzan,
B. (2000).
Human
security:
entails. Paper presented at the
What it
means
and
what
it
14th Asia–Pacific Roundtable, (pp. 1-
15). Kuala Lumpur.
Khong, Y. (2001). Human security: A shotgun approach to alleviating
human misery? Global
Governance , 7 (3), 231–236.
Roland, P. (2001). Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air. International
Security , 26 (2), 87
United
Nations.
102.
(2011). A
assessment. New York: United
transnational
organized
crime
threat
Nations.
World Bank . (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security,
and Development.
Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
human security and state-centric
security be reconciled conceptually
and in practice? If so how?
Introduction
For at least 10 years, practitioners and scholars have increasingly
utilized the phrase “human security” to imply a new human-centric
security instead of the traditional state-centric approach to security.
Despite its increasing application, especially in United Nations policy
statements, foreign policies of countries, teaching curriculum and
scholarly journals, the notion of human security is increasingly becoming a
subject of contention. Further, a subject of contention is the significance of
the conventional state-centric security in addressing the agenda of
contemporary security (United Nations, 2011). In the field of security
studies and international relations, thoughts regarding these dissimilar
security conceptualizations have led to numerous rationalizations for their
respective
viewpoints
(Buzan,
to
2000).
examine
However,
whether
or
not
these
their
different
conceptualizations
fail
security
conceptualizations
affect the general conceptualization of security.
Another way of posing the question is whether or not human-centric and
state security can be reconciled to produce a new paradigm towards
security. This paper argues that the two security paradigms can be
reconciled conceptually and in practice using elements of both statecentric and human centric security paradigms. The new security paradigm
involves two referent objects, which include the state and people,
between the external and internal threats affecting these referent objects
and the diverse means used for improving the security of the state and
people. The new security paradigm also entails constitutive connections
between state and people. Recent scholarly works provide conceptual
proof for this argument. Further, some agents of security such as states,
global institutions and non state actors offer empirical evidence to support
this argument. This paper also makes a case that there are potential
problems associated with this new paradigm; however, the new synthesis
between human-centric and state-centric security provides a solution to
the mounting number of problems affecting the agenda of contemporary
security.
The primary significance of reconciling the concepts and practices of
human-centric and state-centric security is that, under the existing
circumstances, the integration of the elements of different security
paradigms is the most probable means of improving the security of
people. The current societal discourse is characterized by dangerous and
unending intrastate, interstate, and transnational security issues. The
cease of the Cold War did not impose a lasting peace (United Nations,
2011). In the current global discourse, the state is a dominant actor, which
translates to the dominance of state-centric security and sovereignty.
Further, there is an emergent utilitarian and normative imperative to offer
improved security to people. The implication from this observation is that
a single security paradigm cannot meet the objectives of contemporary
security agenda.
Review of Human-Centric and State-Centric Security
In the field of security studies and international relations,
discussions centering on security deploy a conceptual framework referring
to the “referent object” of security, “threats” affecting the referent object,
and the “means” deployed by the referent objects to prevent threats.
Traditionalists consent that the referent object mainly centers on the
state. The threat involves other states having the capacity and intention
to deploy force to attain their objectives whereas means of addressing
these threats include military deterrence and use of force in the event of
an imminent attack. Traditionalists consent that the meaning of security
has not changed much over time, and they oppose the security
conceptualization of human security that is altering their view.
Advocates for state-centric security criticize human-centric security from
different perspectives. Many traditionalists are of the view that there are
no sufficient grounds to make human security a referent object of security.
For instance, Buzan (2000) is refutes the view that human security should
supplement or replace state security as a referent object. Buzan maintains
that the individual causes the issue of agency because, in practice, human
security tries to bypass the state, which is necessary, although not
sufficient to guarantee each person’s security. Further, Buzan points out
that human security is not a new phenomenon because human rights law
is already focusing on the issue of human security. For state-centric
security advocates, human security entails the collectiveness of people
manifested in the form of nations, which is a short route towards national
security. An analysis of the state-centric view reveals that the utilization of
force, the characteristic of the state, and the state’s power is not
influenced
by
the
relations
between
various
states.
Therefore,
traditionalists consent that attempting to make individuals as a referent
object of security is flawed theoretically and empirically. It is evident that
the state-centric security focuses on international relations and the nature
of states to determine what makes up a referent object of security;
however, it disregards what takes place inside the state and the ideologies
of social justice that function at domestic levels. Other critics of the
human-centric approach to security such as Khong (2001) and Roland
(2001) assert that the notion of human security fails to offer practical
guidance in the eradication of human insecurity.
The arguments in support of human-centric security draw on critical
security
studies
and
the
school
of
thought
that
questions
the
traditionalist’s approach to security. Critical security scholars widen their
understanding of security to include three axes, with the first axis
broadening the narrow traditionalist’s view of security to include other
threats to the state such as environmental, economic and uncontrolled
populations. The second axis incorporates other security referents such as
individual security, global security, and societal and regional security. The
third axis advocates for cooperation between various security actors using
collective, collaborative and comprehensive security means (World Bank ,
2011). Advocates of human-centric security criticize the traditional model
on account that it does acknowledge the human-centric dimensions of
security. From an international relations point of view, the most vital
features of human-centric security are that it rectifies state-centric
security and supplements the much required normative dimension. The
state-centric perspective argues that the state is the main referent
security object and that threats come from physical violence in outside
states. On the contrary, human-centric security maintains that human
beings are the main referent security objects and threats come from nonmilitary sources inside the state. Advocates of human-centric security
challenge state-centric security using the frameworks of the development
perspective, wherein human security must involve protecting people from
the hurtful disruptions of underdevelopment found within countries (World
Bank , 2011). An example is the role that poverty plays in causing
domestic conflicts that lead to human insecurity. The second critic of the
state-centric security makes use of the humanitarian perspective, wherein
the state-centric security does not provide direct support for humanitarian
international
law.
The
humanitarian
perspective
cites
the
close
relationship between human security and human security, which serves to
rectify the state-centric security paradigm.
The Suggested Ideal Security Paradigm
It is evident from the above critiques that both human-centric and
state-centric approaches are necessary but not sufficient to address the
contemporary issues affecting human security. Therefore, the ideal
security paradigm should comprise of various elements derived from each
of the paradigms, whereby people and state act as referent objects of
security and threats come from both external and internal dimensions
including
underdevelopment
issues.
In
addition,
an
ideal
security
paradigm must embrace a broad range of measures to tackle the
aforementioned
threats
(United
Nations,
2011).
The
fundamental
argument is that there is an interaction between state-centric and humancentric security models, which implies that an ideal security model should
integrate elements acquired from the individual security paradigms.
A new synthesis of an ideal human security uses the dual aspects of both
state-centric and human-centric security. It is essential to acknowledge
that security entails both the state and people. State security involves the
defense of territorial integrity and self determination. Security of people
involves guaranteeing the safety and survival of human beings from
harms of physical violence. Dual approach to security is a perfect solution
to the increasing cases of spill over conflicts arising from domestic
problems. This integrated approach to security ensures the protection of
human rights universally while at the same time protecting the existence
of states. It is important to eliminate the antagonism between human
security and state security; instead, they should be considered as a
continuum with each reinforcing the effectiveness of the other. Another
element of the suggested security paradigm is the integration of means of
dealing with security threats emanating from both outside and inside the
state (United Nations, 2011). This requires the use of development,
humanitarian principles and force. Empirically, a number of states and
global institutions have endorsed the view that the state and people are
referent objects of security. For instance, the United Nations is one of the
chief supporters of human-centric security model. In addition, most
countries are increasingly incorporating human-centric security in their
state-centric foreign policies.
Conclusion
In the current global discourse, the notion of security is changing
persistently. One of the primary causes for this change in security trends
is terrorism; as a result, counterterrorism methods should incorporate
both human-centric and state-centric means. The inference is that there is
the need to balance between state-centric and human-centric security.
The suggested ideal security paradigm involves two main referent objects,
which include the state and people, between the external and internal
threats affecting these referent objects and the diverse means used for
improving the security of the state and people. As a result, addressing
security issues requires the use of development, humanitarian principles
and force.
References
Buzan,
B. (2000).
Human
security:
entails. Paper presented at the
What it
means
and
what
it
14th Asia–Pacific Roundtable, (pp. 1-
15). Kuala Lumpur.
Khong, Y. (2001). Human security: A shotgun approach to alleviating
human misery? Global
Governance , 7 (3), 231–236.
Roland, P. (2001). Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air. International
Security , 26 (2), 87
United
Nations.
102.
(2011). A
assessment. New York: United
transnational
organized
crime
threat
Nations.
World Bank . (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security,
and Development.
Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
