Human Security and National Security

Human Security is not only the ability to remain safe from disease, hunger and tyranny; but also freedom from conflict, and according to Kerr, the “protection from sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities” (Kerr, 2010, p. 121), which 9.11 disrupted in all areas. With psychology scholars focusing on human security – rather than the analysis of hate, the hypothesis would find that human security warrants the reactions of joy from the citizens, the prevention of all attacks against the nation, as well as the rebuilding of a nation.

Leonard Beaton similarly argued for the need to expand conceptions of security outward from the limits of parochial national security to include a range of systemic considerations. Likewise, Stanley Hoffman argued for the need to begin ‘turning national security into an aspect of world order policy’. Hedley Bull argued against excessive self-interest in approaches to national security, and for a broader view in which common interest and linkage among securities receive greater attention. More generally, Krause and Nye observed that ‘neither economists nor political scientists have paid enough attention to the complexity of the concept of security, including its instrumental role in the enhancement of different values’. The Brandt Commission called for a new concept of security that would transcend the narrow notions of military defence and look more towards the logic of a broader interdependence. The common theme underlying these voices was that a notion of security bound to the level of individual states and military issues is inherently inadequate.

Security can be a tool to rationalize, legitimize, marginalize violence (keeping minority groups in their place) which could in turn reinforce systemic inequalities present in society by turning a blind eye to context. This dichotomy serves as a platform for other invalidation ideologies that works on the continuum of fear that can divide into categories of “us” and “them”, which are then used to send us messages about who is a threat, and leads to constructions of what individuals who are not able to stand up for themselves. The death of Ashley Smith illustrates how the range of oppressive structures were responsible for the persistent and severe denials of her fundamental rights. In this context, we can see that the state has both the means to violate and protect human rights.

The author, Mr. Paul Kennedy reports that both the actions needed to protect human beings, as well as report environmental issues, and world wide record keeping efforts have soared both in requests for services and the needed manpower to deliver these services. Continuing, the world is crying out for the kinds of services that could protect all humans. Ideally, an international police force that could serve and protect people in all corners of the world- would be a strong deterrent toward these acts of terrorism that we see each night on the world news scene (Human Rights).

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

It is important to clarify that this is not an unique and unite theory, but instead it differs from scholar to scholar because each one have a different focus. With the emergence of new non-state threats that not only affect States but also individuals, like terrorism, the need for a new approach capable of offering new responses was indeed needed, following a post-positivist way (Malik, 2005). In the last years the wake up call to rethink security as a concept was the 9/11 attacks, giving to critical theory an opportunity.

This “human-security state,” according to Amar, produces subjects in need of protection as well as areas in need of regulating, especially in sexualized, gendered, and racialized ways, it’s a shared modern governance model. Most studies of Brazil, Egypt, and other countries historicize the rise of neoliberal control during the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. Amar replaces this timeline with a cultivated security mode of governance that carried, neoliberal order by promising “to reconcile human rights and national security interests.” The human security based on the idea that strengthening human rights can enhance the security and safety of states through a subtle balancing of militarism and

In most of the cases opposing the concept of human rights to national security is erroneous and unreasonable construction because the national security is the concept which precludes the physical and mental security of all members of the society, and therefore includes and predetermines the possibility of exercising human rights and freedoms. Without security the well-being is impossible.

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

The rise of terrorist organizations post 9/11 has challenged nation-state borders and their sovereignty. The presence of insurgencies and terrorist organizations has begun to affect the legitimacy of governments externally and their internal sovereignty.

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).

The purpose for an IT security policy is to provide “strategy, policy, and standards regarding the security of and operations in cyberspace, and encompasses the full range of threat reduction, vulnerability reduction, deterrence, international engagement, incident response, resiliency, and recovery policies and activities, including computer network operations, information assurance, law enforcement, diplomacy, military, and intelligence missions as they relate to the security and stability of the global information and communications infrastructure” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016).

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,