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, 2000). However, these different conceptualizations fail to examine whether or not their 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 state-centric 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 non-military 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 human-centric 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: What it means and what it entails. Paper presented at the        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     102.

United Nations. (2011). A transnational organized crime threat assessment. New York: United     Nations.

World Bank . (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development.        Washington DC: World Bank Publications.