Concepts of security

Answer

Protecting the state — its territory, sovereignty and citizens — from military threats, using armies, borders, deterrence and alliances. Its referent object is the state.

Answer

Protecting individuals from threats to their survival and dignity — freedom from fear (violence) AND freedom from want (poverty, hunger, disease). Its referent object is the person.

Answer

The thing that is to be made secure — the 'who' or 'what' we are protecting; the state in traditional security, the individual in human security.

Answer

One half of human security — protection from violence, war, repression and coercion; safety from physical harm.

Answer

The other half of human security — protection from poverty, hunger, disease and material deprivation.

Answer

It decides what threats count as 'security': if the state, then military survival; if the individual, then poverty, disease and repression all count too.

Answer

State security measures military survival, so a militarily powerful state may still leave its citizens poor, repressed or endangered — state and human security can diverge.

Answer

It is clear, focused and actionable, and the state is the precondition for everything else — without a surviving state, nothing else is possible.

Answer

That if 'security' means everything that threatens well-being, it means nothing in particular, loses analytical edge, and risks militarising development or health problems.

Answer

Because the ultimate point of security is to keep people safe — the state exists to protect people, so its security matters for the human security it delivers.

Answer

Both matter: the state is a vital provider of security, but as a means — the referent object should be the individual, while keeping 'security' focused enough to act on.