Rethinking Security: The Limits of the Traditional Concept of Security in a World of Non-Traditional Threats
Published:
Dec 29, 2020
Keywords:
security non-traditional threats neo-military state security climate change holistic security
Abstract
This essay discusses the evolution of the modern conception of security and argues that there is a need for its expansion in order to tackle the rising non-traditional threats. Traditionally, the realist paradigm of national security has dominated the academic debate, while promoting a military and state-centric approach to “doing security”. Despite emergence of non-military and non-state security threats, the paradigm of national security is still figuring at the center of the modern state. However, the proliferation of non-traditional threats combined with the states’ inability to address them have troubled the academia and policymakers. This perception has been further reinforced by the latest Covid-19 pandemic, which demonstrated not only the limitations of national security, but also the dangerous consequences of this new type of threat. As climate change effects become more tangible and destructive, it becomes evident that the coronavirus outbreak is another indication that the security landscape is not equipped to confront rising threats. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a more holistic security concept and the dismantlement of the preexisting strictly state-centric and military approaches.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Fusiek, D. A. (2020). Rethinking Security: The Limits of the Traditional Concept of Security in a World of Non-Traditional Threats. HAPSc Policy Briefs Series, 1(2), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.12681/hapscpbs.26500
- Section
- Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Argomaniz, J. (2011). The EU and counter-terrorism: politics, polity and policies after 9/11. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.
Bartelson, J. (2001). The critique of the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Baumann, R., Rittberger, V. and Wagner, W. (1998). Power and power politics: neorealist foreign policy theory and expectations about german foreign policy since unification. Tübingen: Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen, Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, Nr. 30a).
BBC (2020). Trump says coronavirus worse 'attack' than Pearl Harbor. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52568405 (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Brown, W. (2010). Walled states, waning sovereignty. Brooklyn, New York: Zone Books.
Buzan, B. (1983). People, states, and fear: the national security problem in international relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Buzan, B. (1984). Peace, Power, and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations. Journal of Peace Research, 21(2): 109–125.
Buzan, B. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge Studies in International Relations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Pub.
Diehl, P. F. (1996). Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict: An Introduction. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 15(1): 1–5.
Europol (2019). THE THREAT FROM TERRORISM IN THE EU BECAME MORE COMPLEX IN 2018. Available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/threat-terrorism-in-eu-became-more-complex-in-2018 (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Fjäder, C. (2014). The nation-state, national security and resilience in the age of globalization. Resilience, 2 (2): 114-129.
Grizold, A. (1994). The Concept of National Security in the Contemporary World. International Journal on World Peace, 11(3): 37–53.
Hobbes, T., Pogson Smith, W. G. and HeinOnline World Constitutions Illustrated: Contemporary & Historical Documents & Resources (1929). Hobbe's leviathan: reprinted from the edition of 1651. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1991). On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict. International Security, 16(2): 76–116.
IPSOS (2020). Public Opinion on the COVID-19 pandemic [19th November]. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en/public-opinion-covid-19-outbreak (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Jackson, J. H. (2003). Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept. The American Journal of International Law, 97(4): 782–802.
Kathimerini (2020). Mitsotakis: ‘The war has not been won yet’. Available at: https://www.ekathimerini.com/251656/article/ekathimerini/news/mitsotakis-the-war-has-not-been-won-yet (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Kemp, W. (2020). Transnational Tentacle: global hotspots of Western Balkan Organized Crime. The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. Available at: https://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Transnational-Tentacles-Global-Hotspots-of-Balkan-Organized-Crime-ENGLISH_MRES.pdf (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: world politics in transition. Boston, Mass., etc.: Little, Brown.
Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Lacy, M. J. (2005). Security and climate change: international relations and the limits of realism. London: Routledge.
Lutterbeck, D. (2005). Blurring the Dividing Line: The Convergence of Internal and External Security in Western Europe. European Security, 14(2): 231–253.
McFarlane, J. (2000). International Co-operation Against Transnational Crime: Second Track Mechanisms. Transnational Crime Conference. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: Norton.
Meijnders, M., Putten Van der, FP. and Rood, J (2015). Deterrence as a security concept against non-traditional threats. Clingendael Institute of International Relations. Available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/deterrence_as_a_security_concept_against_non_traditional_threats.pdf (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Morgan, P. (2007). Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches. In: A.Collins (eds.), Contemporary Security Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 13-34.
Resende, E. and Budryte, D. (2013). Memory and trauma in international relations: theories, cases and debates. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis (Interventions). Available at: https://public-ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.library.uu.nl/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1565855 (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Rowley, C. and Weldes, J. (2012). The Evolution of International Security Studies and the Everyday: Suggestions from the Buffyverse. Security Dialogue, 43(6): 513–530.
Shani, G., Satō Makoto and Pasha, M. K. (2007). Protecting human security in a post 9/11 world: critical and global insights. Basingstoke England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sears, N.A (2020). The Securitization of COVID-19: Three Political Dilemmas. Global Policy Journal. Available at: https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/03/2020/securitization-covid-19-three-political-dilemmas (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
The Economist (2020). No vaccine for cruelty: The pandemic has eroded democracy and respect for human rights. Available at: https://www.economist.com/international/2020/10/17/the-pandemic-has-eroded-democracy-and-respect-for-human-rights (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Ullman, R. H. (1983). Redefining Security. International Security, 8(1): 129–153.
UN (2020). UN report finds COVID-19 is reversing decades of progress on poverty, healthcare and education. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/sustainable/sustainable-development-goals-report-2020.html (Accessed: 30/11/2020).
Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating Theories. The American Political Science Review, 91(4): 913–917.
Weber, M. (1945). Max Weber. New York: American Artists Group (Monograph/American Artists Group, no. 4).
