Human or National (Traditional Security)
If the interests of national (state) security and human security collided, which do you consider first between state security and human security? Why do you think so?
Even though today, many individuals are victims, not of foreign military aggression and nuclear war, but of violence committed against them by their own state, criminals, terrorist attacks, nature, diseases and poverty; and usually traditional or national Security paradigm has no place for most of these threats, ignoring it totally and shift to Human security will not do any good mainly for the following reasons:
1. Human Security by definition is very wide and vague at times; if individuals are the referent object of human security, the course will become too big and vague to have both theoretical and practical utilities. It will be very difficult to enact laws and regulations that can meet up to every referent object’s need.
2. Human Security sometimes is not any different from national security, especially when it considers collectivity of people as it’s referent object since the state can also be included in that category since it’s the highest and largest political collectivity of people sharing common national identity.
3. The interventionist characteristics of human security would greatly disturb international security and peace because it violates a principle, sovereignty, which has successfully prevented war between states so far. It might even be used as a cover up for colonization and containment of some less powerful or less developed states by major and super states.
4. Human Security does not answer the question ‘who actually should provide the security’ as some of its school abandoned the state from their realm to the fullest. Besides, if state, the most structured and organized institution holding human, military and monetary capabilities to secure its citizens is ignored who else would take the burden of