Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
viewpoints
(Buzan,
to
2000).
examine
However,
whether
or
not
these
their
different
conceptualizations
fail
security
conceptualizations
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
by
the
relations
between
various
states.
Therefore,
studies
and
the
school
of
thought
that
questions
the
law.
The
humanitarian
perspective
cites
the
close
underdevelopment
issues.
In
addition,
an
ideal
security
threats
(United
Nations,
2011).
The
fundamental
argument is that there is an interaction between state-centric and humancentric 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
Buzan,
B. (2000).
Human
security:
What it
means
and
what
it
Nations.
102.
(2011). A
transnational
organized
crime
threat
Nations.