Published on Beyond Intractability (http://www.beyondintractability.

org)
Home > Security

Security
Security, or sense of safety, is one of several "fundamental human needs" that must be met if conflict resolution is to be successful
according to human-needs theorists.
Security

By
Omario Kanji
October 2003

In the context of conflict resolution, the definition of "security" depends on one's perspective. At the simplest level, security may be
defined as "the quality or state of being secure," "freedom from danger," or "freedom from fear or anxiety." Of the many other levels
on which one can analyze security, the most relevant here are individual, group, regional, national, and global. Our task is then
relatively simple; we consider how security is defined at these different levels. What emerges is a framework upon which security
agreements are constructed and implemented.
Individual Security
On the individual level, security is most often understood as safety. This safety includes freedom from
harm, whether physical or psychological. Threats to an individual's security can produce the fear or
anxiety mentioned above. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all
people are entitled to "security of person." This declaration reinforces the concept of freedom from
physical and psychological harm. Yet, what measures will be taken to protect an individual from harm?
Carolyn Stephenson
The most common forms of protection are legal structures that protect individuals from threats to their
talks about alternative
security. These include, but are not limited to, laws against murder, sex crimes, bodily harm, theft, and
definitions
of pursuing
psychological harm such as coercion. The state assumes responsibility for constructing and
"security."
implementing these legal regulations. In addition, security can be related to one's ability to attain the
fundamental physical needs of a home, food, and socio-economic needs such as a job. The concept of individual security can
therefore be linked to an individual's perception of her or his standard of living. The individual may thus equate security with a high
standard of living.
Group Security
Discussing regional security requires us to first define the extent of the "region." Since we have placed the regional beneath the
national level in this hierarchy, we are speaking of a physical area within a nation, which could be a collection of provinces, cities, or
states. If there were certain religious, national, or ethnic groups that dominated a region, we would still speak of their security at the
group level. What is regional security, then?
The simplest concept of security at the regional level could be economic, implying protection of regional interests. Perhaps a
regional association with, or ownership of, a valued resource could provoke desires for security, and the responsibility for protecting
that security would rest on the region. For example, labor or trade unions perform this function. Other notions of security at this level
could be to maintain a certain standard of living. In this realm, members of a regional group might want to protect themselves from
mass immigration, which could occur due to the region's coveted resources. The region might seek to ensure its security by
campaigning against this immigration. Threats to security are often cited here, usually connected to issues of lowered living
standards. On a more subtle level, religious, national, or ethnic groups may shrewdly promote their interests under the guise of
regional security, and may elevate their group security to a regional priority level.
National Security
The national level of security is probably the most often examined and
contentious definition of security. The nation-state often assumes the role
of guarantor for individual security, group security, and perhaps regional
security; for example, agricultural subsidies or steel tariffs are one way in
which a nation-state protects a region within its boundaries from a
foreign threat.

Morton Deutsch talks Angela Khaminwa quotes

about the importance of
Susan Collin Marx, "If we
security
at
both
the
don't coexist, we all coAfter ensuring individual, group, and regional security, how does the
international
and
destruct."
state define its own security? Lasso and Gonzalez state that "the entirety
interpersonal levels.
of conditions -- political, economic, military, social, and cultural -necessary to guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and promotion of national interest..."[1] defines security. We can then ask
what threatens those five conditions. Security from the military viewpoint is highly visible, and a nation will act when it is threatened
militarily. Economic threats can also be simply defined, although domestic protectionism can often clash with international trade
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

agreements signed by the same nation. A nation's claim that its protectionism helps ensure national economic security can cause
international uproar. (For example, see the essay on Development and Conflict.)
Tension is introduced when a nation defines what in particular guarantees its political, socio-economic, and cultural security. For
example, actions undertaken to protect cultures can easily be interpreted as discriminatory or racist. Cultural security is especially
difficult to define and protect in heterogeneous, democratic societies such as the United States.
Socio-economic security can also assume controversial definitions and interpretations. Surely a rapidly aging population can
threaten socio-economic security. A further question is what measures the state will undertake to solve the problem. Tension can
again be introduced if the state or the society chooses to blame a specific group for the threat to socio-economic security. Here,
security definitions are at odds since the state is protecting its own security by threatening a group's security.
Perhaps the most ambiguous aspect of security is that of political security, which may be very broadly defined. Often, a nation will
react to threats to its political philosophies, as well as threats to its culture, society, or economy. The term "national security" has
recently been used to justify "security" procedures within the United States as well as military action outside its borders. This widens
the parameters for national security definitions, and implies a wide range of actions available to a nation.
Global Security
Global security is a relatively new concept, and conjures up images of organizations such as the United Nations. Global security,
however, may be undermined by national security concerns; if one nation feels threatened by another, then global security cannot
exist since members of the world are in disagreement. Global security is also undermined by negative judgment by one nation of
another's philosophy of government. If nation A decides that nation B's governing methods are wrong, nation A will not submit to a
global authority that allows nation B's methods to continue. Global security is thus a weak concept, since it assumes a supranational
entity to whose judgment nations would yield in matters of disagreement. This is obviously a far-fetched goal, which is unlikely to be
realized in the near future. As resources such as land, water, and oil are increasingly coveted by nations, global security has little
chance to emerge as a durable concept in international relations.[2]
The Security Dilemma
At the national and global level, providing security creates a dilemma. It is generally thought that security is provided with a strong
military that can deter attack. Yet, the development of military strength can be seen as a threat by the other side, which then
increases its own military investment. This, then, actually decreases both sides' security, rather than increasing it. Security is
actually a positive-feedback system. The more security I feel, the more secure my opponent(s) will feel, because I won't have to arm
myself against them. But the less secure I feel, the more I will arm, and the less secure my opponent will feel as well. This security
dilemma is what fueled the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and indeed, it is much of what is fueling the conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians, Indians and Pakistanis and North and South Korea. (There are other factors in all of those conflicts as well, but
security is a big issue.)[3]
Conclusion
The concept of security, on all levels, is related to basic concepts of human psychology. If threatened, people will react and take
necessary defensive measures. At the individual level, one can sometimes ward off threats by exercising caution in his or her daily
life. He or she may arrange additional security measures, such as alarm systems, weapons, or perhaps changing residences. This
same type of reaction may occur on the group or regional level. On the national and global levels, more formal structures of defense
and security agreements exist. Nations might activate defense systems to react to overt threats, but this can threaten the other side,
thereby reducing security, rather than increasing it. Furthermore, they might cooperate to create security agreements such as
NATO, which foster cooperation and collaborative defense and security measures in the face of a perceived threat.
[1] L.H. Lasso, G. Gonzalez, in B.M. Bagley, S.A. Quezada, Eds. Mexico in Search of Security, (University of Miami Press, 1993),
4. <http://www.amazon.com/Mexico-Security-Bruce-M-Bagley/dp/1560006862>; see also Brian J. Bow, and Arturo Santa Cruz,
The State and Security in Mexico: Transformation and Crisis in Regional Perspective (Routledge, 2012).
<http://books.google.com/books?id=Am9r_7ftVdoC>.
[2]. For further discussion of global security, including applications to the War in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs), see: Peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, (Routledge, 2008). <http://books.google.com/books?
id=c_B-qty22m8C>.
[3] This paragraph was added by Heidi Burgess. It was not part of the author's original essay, but as editor, I took the liberty of
adding it.

Use the following to cite this article:

Kanji, Omario. "Security." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University
of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/security>.
Additional Resources

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

Post a comment or suggestion about this page or topic...

(If you have a comment or suggestion about the system in general, please post it on our Comments and Suggestions page instead.)
Source URL: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/security

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com