Which Framework Is More Advantageous For The World? Be Better Off?

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

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.

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.

We took and broke down each section of realists, liberalist, global humanist and Marxists views about national security. We can now tell what some of the differences are in each group as well. They all make important arguments about their views as national security as a policy issue, their views about economic consequences, views on human rights implications, and their environmental views. After doing this paper I can honestly say that I can relate to a realist view but also like some of what the Marxist views stated. Over all I think that national security is here to protect the state and the citizens in that state against whatever is thrown at it whether that may be against political power, economic power and so

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

Human security is a very broad concept of security and has been developed in order to challenge

This contribution was a smoking grenade for traditional interpretations of security. A security community is a region in which a large-scale use of violence such as war has become very unlikely or even unthinkable. In the late 1950s, Karl Deutsch and his colleagues challenged the traditional and governing approach to security. They explored the concept of “security communities”. Deutsch identified a nascent security community: such a community where the component states had come to reject the use or threat of force as a mechanism for resolving disputes among these states, such a security community which emphasized the utility of military power and the inevitable nature of military threats. Moreover, Deutsch argued that economic and cultural cooperation was a far better route toward the formation of such a security community than was common membership in a traditional military alliance. Deutsch and his collaborators defined a security community as "a group of people" believing "that they have come to agreement on at least this one point: that common social problems must and can be resolved by processes of 'peaceful change'". Peaceful change was defined as "the resolution of social problems, normally by institutionalized procedures, without resort to large-scale physical force". People in a security community are also bound by the "sense of community", the mutual sympathy, trust, and common

The United States adopts the idea of human security as national security because, with the changing tides of things, governments use this approach to legitimize their use of repression

The fear leads the state to maximize its power, to protect its security, these attempts of state to look after their security needs, regardless of its intention, decrease the insecurity for others, which mean each state, interprets its own measures as protecting and measures of others as potentially alarming, all of which leads to perpetual security competition. Waltz argues that it is not enough security, that state interest and wish to exert power will always

Security is not only survival, but living without fear” (Diskaya 2013). These words are essential in understanding that the answer to dissecting security lay in the balance of varying schools of thought. This analysis aims to examine whom security is for, rather whom are we securing, be it the state or the individual. I will argue, going forward that there is no clear-cut answer to this question, for security must exhibit factors of each school of thought in order to adequately ensure annihilation of global insecurity. Analyzing the works of scholars such as Barry Buzan, Ken Booth, and groups such as the Copenhagen School will offer a broader understanding of security and what it truly means to be secure.

We live in tumultuous times, the contemporary modern state is facing unprecedented challenges to maintaining peace and stability within its borders from external and internal threats. The rise of terrorism, war, and conflicts have resulted in global instability and insecurity. As such, security agencies are scrutinized for their shortcomings, governments are criticized for their unilateral approaches to complex problems, and civilians are in a state of perpetual fear. As a result, modern liberal nation-states have taken advantage of the spirit of fear, and exploited the current

The issue of security has long been the preoccupation of international relations. It has been argued that there is no common concept of security and disagreement in the normative and methodological approach. In the simplest form, the core of security is survival, and consequently a lack of threat. In terms of international relations, the state has been the main referent object of security. Arnold Wolfers proposed the definition of security as the "(security), in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked".” In the traditional approach, threats to security comes from a hard power source and is framed through a national security

Traditionally, security is understood as national security. However, this notion proves to lack of a comprehensive understanding because the nature of conflicts is changing, and the state is no longer the sole object to be protected. Therefore, many scholars have suggested a new concept in terms of security, which is security for human. The concept of human security has been regarded as controversial since its introduction in the world politics. However, it is undeniable that the concept has been developed in recent decades to make it a useful tool for security studies. To examine to what extent the concept of human security is a useful one, this paper would consider both the positive and negative side of the concept for academic and policy-making purpose. In the first part, I would explain the origin as well as the definition of the concept to show that it has broadened the notion of security. Then, I will demonstrate its achievements in the world politics, particularly, human security has been adapted in policies of some developed countries in the world. Also, the concept is strengthened by the introduction of the Responsibility to Protect in 2005. In the second part, I will explore some critiques on the concept, mainly for its vagueness and broadness. Those are the disadvantages of the concept which cause difficulties for the scholars and policy-makers to do research about security.

Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is “essentially contested” and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreements have created rifts in the security community over what can be threatened and indeed what can even be considered a threat. Part of the complexity to the subject is derived from the numerous opposing and often contradicting theoretical perspectives within international relations itself, of which security is a sub-field (Terrif et al. 1991 – Security studies today). This paper thereby seeks to trace the various theoretical strands of security studies with the hope of elucidating how and why Islam, and Muslims immigrants have been increasingly portrayed as a threat and ‘Otherised’ in Britain.