To What Extent Is the Traditional Concept of National Security Inadequate in Understanding and Assessing the Actual Nature and Scale of Threats to Human Beings?
The classical understanding of National Security is very narrow and inadequate as it identifies threats by only particular type. Also, its response to a threat is also very traditional, which emphasize the use of man and fire powers to address the challenge. In most of the countries (developing and developed), the concept and doctrine of national security have not evolved into human security, which is a broader concept that identifies various types of security challenges that individuals and nations (societies) face. For instance, human security is not only perceived as safety or protection from chronic threats, but also it is understood as security for any undesired and harmful disruption in different patterns of a human life. It identifies threats such as chemical and biological weapons that are unconventional and demand extraordinary response (Weir 18). The conventional concept of national security is not so comprehensive and detailed, which makes it inadequate in addressing contemporary challenges, both at tactical and strategic levels. It is one of the reasons why the conventional national security system fails to identify contemporary threats to human beings that are far more potent.
Do You Think Human Security Offers a More Useful Tool in Capturing Today’s Complex Security Challenges?
Human security is a contemporary concept that addresses today’s complex security challenges such as threat associated with biological weapons or health security caused by indigenous or exogenous factors (Aldis 372). It is comprehensive; however, because of its broadness and freshness, the concept becomes vague and lacks clarity/precision. Different studies have attempted to interpret the term human security in a contemporary context; however, all the interpretations seem detached or severed from one another, which makes the entire concept perplexing and vague (Paris 88). However, all the studies on the subject acknowledge that human security has different understandings at different levels (strategic and tactical levels).
Human security allows countries to identify various forms of threats that can be disruptive and harmful at individual and national levels. However, as human security gives almost equal relevance to all the concerns and threats, it fails to prioritize concerns and threats, which reduces the usefulness of this concept.
Work Cited
Aldis, William. “Health security as a public health concept: a critical analysis.” Health Policy and Planning 23.1 (2008): 369-375. PDF.
Paris, Roland. “Human security: paradigm shift or hot air?” International security 26.2 (2001): 87-102.
Weir, Lorna. “Chapter 2: Inventing Global Health Security, 1994–2005.” Rushton, Simon and Jeremy Youde. Routledge Handbook of Global Health Security. 2014.
+447462439809