Security as a Concept: Why the Debate Still Matters

-

By Bernard Yegiora

Security remains one of the most powerful and contested ideas in international relations. It shapes budgets, institutions, political priorities, and ultimately determines who receives protection and who does not. Yet despite its centrality, the meaning of security is neither fixed nor universally agreed upon.

In a recent seminar presentation, my students examined how the concept of security has evolved beyond its traditional military focus. Drawing on Paul Williams’ Security Studies: An Introduction and the broader framework associated with Barry Buzan, the discussion explored how security now extends into political, economic, societal, and environmental domains. This expansion has significantly reshaped both scholarship and policy practice.

Seminar 1: Reframing Security in International Relations — examining how the concept of security has evolved from traditional military concerns to include human, economic, societal, and environmental dimensions.

For much of the twentieth century, security was largely equated with state survival and military capability. Strategic studies dominated the field, focusing on deterrence, war, alliances, and the balance of power. In this framework, the state was the primary referent object and military strength was the principal instrument of security. The assumption was straightforward: more power meant more security.

However, the end of the Cold War exposed the limitations of this narrow approach. Conflicts increasingly involved internal wars, identity politics, economic collapse, health crises, and environmental degradation. These were not peripheral issues; they were central to stability and survival. Scholars began asking harder questions: Whose security are we protecting? What counts as a security threat? How should security be achieved?

The broadened framework recognizes five key sectors of security: military, political, economic, societal, and environmental. This multi-sector approach allows us to analyze climate change as a security issue, to view economic instability as a source of vulnerability, and to treat identity-based conflict as a matter of societal survival. It also compels governments to rethink policy design. Security can no longer be outsourced to defence ministries alone. It requires integrated governance.

One of the most important debates in contemporary security studies concerns the philosophical foundations of security. On one side is a power-centered view that treats security as a commodity to be accumulated through military and strategic strength. On the other side is an emancipatory perspective that sees security as linked to justice, human rights, and freedom from structural threats. These competing philosophies influence everything from defence spending to humanitarian intervention.

Another critical insight is that security is inherently political. Labeling an issue as a “security threat” elevates it above ordinary politics. It mobilizes resources, reshapes priorities, and justifies extraordinary measures. This is why the concept is described as “contested.” Different actors define threats differently, and those definitions carry real consequences.

In the Pacific context, including PNG, these debates are particularly relevant. Climate vulnerability, economic dependence, transnational crime, public health risks, and internal governance challenges all intersect with traditional security concerns. A narrow military lens does not capture the full spectrum of risks facing small and developing states. A broader framework provides more analytical leverage.

The seminar recording below captures student presentations engaging with these themes. It reflects the ongoing effort to encourage analytical thinking beyond textbook definitions and toward applied understanding of contemporary security challenges.

Security is not a static concept. It evolves with political realities, technological change, and shifting global power structures. Understanding its complexity is essential for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners alike.

Watch the full seminar recording here:https://youtu.be/12jXWpIP4JA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more