STATE SECURITY

Is the state still central to security?



Is the state still central to security?

Introduction

For centuries, the notion of security was confused, or nearly so, with that of defence and public order. The concept of "national security" is also one of the favourite expressions of political leaders, as evidenced, the annual address of President of the Union of the United States. If the concept of national security is one of the key notions of politics, it is because it links the word "security" to nation. Security; national or international, is designed according to the power relations between states, so through their power, resulting generally in terms of military capabilities. In short, the safety of an individual and a community is provided exclusively by the state to which they belong. Furthermore, the state receives the security in military terms, as "defence" of the territory and "national interests."

The concept of collective security goes a step further since it involves states to ensure that security is no longer just national but it is regional, international or global. As an idea, collective security is old. Popular during the Enlightenment (Kant and Rousseau), one can trace its roots in the Middle Ages. In practice, collective security is embodied by the unfortunate episode of the League of Nations, and by the more successful, the United Nations Organization. The collective security system represents an improvement over the system of "anarchic society," as political scientist Hedley Bull called, is always based on political representation that occurs exclusively by individual states.

Discussion

The concept of "human security" is newer. From a historical standpoint, it coincides with both the collapse of the bipolar system of the Cold War, with the questioning of the primacy of the nation state, with the democratization of the world, with taking awareness of the importance of our environment. In short, the notion of "human security" returns to the basic element of the adventure of humanity, the individual, while extending beyond national borders and traditional concepts of political ties. The individual is not only a more or less active component of a political entity; he is related to its environment, and with his or her planet.

It's the turn of the twenty-first century scholars, then quickly non-governmental organizations, which are interested in the much broader concept of "security" that corresponds to new needs, new decision-consciousness, and the desire to solve problems that, if they are not new, are closer to our concerns. While security threats recede - the risk of a widespread disaster is almost non-existent a few decades after the end of World War II - problems related to health, as the AIDS epidemic, the environment - including global warming - extreme poverty, access to drinking water and human rights appear to be as vital for the individual than those resulting from organized violence and legitimate from States. The "duty to intervene" which appeared in the 1990s is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the centrality of the individual at a time when the notion of absolute sovereignty is ...