State Security, Societal Security, and Human Security

Abstract

Generally speaking, the traditional approach of security mainly regards states as a sole referent object of security and refutes any attempt to broaden the concept of security. This understanding is known as a realist approach. This approach, however, has been recently challenged by the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. The Copenhagen School assumes that there is now a duality of security: state security and societal security. However, both the Welsh School and the human security school look at individuals as a sole referent object of security. This article critically reviews the traditional approaches of security, the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. This article finally argues that the Copenhagen School could successfully broaden the concept of security, and therefore, it is more convincing when compared to other schools.

Toward a postcolonial securities critique of higher education leadership: globalization as a recolonization in developing countries like the UAE

“…Unlike realist and neo-realist schools of security studies, the newer ones are distinguishable by the following: drawing on more disciplines like sociology, history, and anthropology in addition to political science: deriving from constructivist and critical intellectual traditions; being more focused on societal security concerned with identity related to cultural traditions; being more relevant for these reasons to developing countries and those on the receiving end of globalization; and being more consistent with some postcolonial critiques that draw on critical, constructivist and identity analysis (Buzan, Weaver & de Wilde, 1998;Krause & Williams, 1997;McDonald, 2008;Peoples & Vaughn-Williams, 2010). And, mostly importantly for this paper's argument, is that they shifted to societal security, focused on other social institutions than state and military (Hama, 2017). Relevant to a critique of globalized education, is that the constructivist approaches do not restrict themselves to state actors (like the traditional realist schools), broadening the range to corporate bodies, Non-Governmental Organisations, international organisations, and movements that may be loosely organized but which have an impact on their target populations (Barkawi & Laffey, 2006;Bilgin, 2018;Booth, 1997), a major feature of these security studies approaches.…”

Can Security and Safety Education Support Sustainability? Lessons Learned from Poland

“…[13][14][15][16][17]. However, the catalogue of the term bezpieczeństwo is much wider and breaks a given taxonomic order; the examples from the literature include either more generic or more specific views, inter alia: state security, societal security, and human security [19]; social security [20]; societal security and safety [21,22]; gender security [23]; personal and existential security [24,25]; food security [26]; food safety [27,28]; health security and safety [29]; information security education and training [30]; energy security [31][32][33]; economic security [34]; industrial security [35]; industrial safety [36]; innovation security [37]; cybersecurity [38]; production safety [39]; climate security [40]; environmental security [41]; groundwater security [42]; water security [43]; water safety [44]; ecosystem security [45]; legal security [46]; global security [47]; community security [48]; community safety [49].…”

Sustainable Security: Revolution or Utopia?

“…The most essential consideration will be the perspective in which security is understood. Given of the numerous paradoxes that a traditional, realist take on national security produces, we will apply the model of integrated security systems (Kitler, 2017) that combines the Copenhagen School paradigm and its varied security sector divisions, with the Welsh school's critical approach, with human security being the basic point of reference (Hama, 2017). Security taxonomies depend on one's understanding of security, which is a subject of endless debate.…”