The big idea: Security used to mean one thing: protecting the state from military attack.
Security for whom, and from what?: There are two very different answers to the question 'security for whom, and from what?' Traditional (state/national) security puts the state first: armies, borders, deterrence. Human security puts the individual first.
The heart of the challenge: The heart of the challenge is that the referent object shifts from the state to the person.
- Traditional / state security — the referent object is the state; the threat is military; the response is armies, alliances and deterrence.
- Human security — the referent object is the individual; threats include violence, poverty, disease and disaster; the response is protection and development.
- Freedom from fear — one half of human security: safety from physical harm.
- Freedom from want — the other half: safety from deprivation.
Why the referent object matters: Everything follows from who you are trying to make secure.
Referent object: the state
- A strong army and secure borders count as 'security'.
- This holds even if the state's own citizens are poor, repressed or unsafe.
Referent object: the individual
- A state can be militarily powerful yet deeply insecure for the people living in it.
Not a technical detail: So the shift from state to person is not a technical detail. It changes what threats we even count, and what we think security requires.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
For most of history, security meant national security: the survival of the state against external military attack.
This is the traditional or realist view. States in an anarchic world must protect their territory and sovereignty, so military strength is the currency of security.
The case for traditional state security
In a world of sovereign states with no world government, the first duty of a state is to survive — to protect its territory, borders and people from invasion or coercion. Military power, deterrence and alliances are how it does this, and without that basic protection nothing else is possible. On this view, security is fundamentally about the STATE, and a strong state is the precondition for everything else.
Why state security isn't the whole story
But a militarily secure state can still be a dangerous place to live — its own government may repress, neglect or impoverish its people, and most people today are far more likely to be harmed by poverty, disease, crime or their own state than by a foreign army. So focusing only on the state can miss where real insecurity lies: with individuals, whose survival and dignity a powerful state does not automatically protect.
Case study — a strong state, insecure people: Imagine a country with a large, well-equipped army and firmly defended borders. By the traditional measure, it is highly secure: no rival state dares attack it. Yet inside those borders, ordinary people face grinding poverty, a collapsing health system, and a government that jails critics.
Judged by human security
- Freedom from fear: they fear their own state.
- Freedom from want: they lack food, medicine, work.
- So this is a deeply insecure society. On paper the state is secure; in reality the people are not.
The HL lesson: State security and human security can point in opposite directions. So which concept you use decides whether you call this country 'secure' at all.
The key point: Traditional (state/national) security protects the state — its territory, sovereignty and citizens — from military threats. Human security protects the individual — freedom from fear (violence) and freedom from want (deprivation). The two can diverge: a state can be militarily secure while its people are not. Which concept you adopt sets the referent object and so decides what security means.
Practice with exam-style questions
Answer exam-style questions and get AI feedback that shows you exactly what examiners want to see in a full-marks response.
So which concept should we use — should security mean protecting the state, or protecting people? Does broadening security to include poverty and disease strengthen it or dilute it? Weigh it — and recommend.
Why broaden security to the individual
Most human suffering and death comes not from inter-state war but from poverty, hunger, disease, disaster and internal violence. If security means keeping people safe, then it must cover these threats — and the referent object must be the individual, not just the state. Human security captures what actually threatens most people's survival and dignity, and reminds us the state exists to protect people, not the other way round.
The objection to broadening it
Critics warn that if 'security' means everything that threatens well-being — poverty, climate, disease, crime — then it means nothing in particular, loses its analytical edge, and risks militarising problems better handled as development or health. A focused, state-centred concept, they argue, is clearer and more actionable; where exactly to draw the boundary of 'security' is genuinely contested.
One view: state-centred
- Security should stay state-centred.
- It is clear and focused.
- It is the foundation for everything else.
Another view: human-centred
- Security must be human-centred.
- It is people, not states, who ultimately suffer.
Weighing them: the HL judgement: Both matter. The state remains a vital provider of security, but it is a means, not the ultimate end. So the referent object should be the individual, with state security valued for the human security it delivers.
The limit: Be careful not to stretch 'security' until it loses all meaning.
How concepts of security come up in Paper 3: Paper 3 stimulus might describe a military build-up, a humanitarian crisis, or a repressive but 'stable' state.
What to do with it
- Ask who is being made secure (the referent object) and from what.
- Analyse the state-vs-human distinction.
- Recommend: usually a human-centred concept that still values the state as a provider of security.
How Paper 3 rewards you (HL)
Understand
Show you understand the challenge and the stimulus material accurately.
base
Analyse
Break the challenge down — causes, actors, perspectives — using the material.
analyse
Recommend
Propose and justify a course of action — the Paper-3-specific skill.
recommend
Synthesise
Pull the material together into a judged, evaluated response.
top
Recommend how policymakers should define 'security' when responding to a crisis that threatens people but not the state.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes (Paper 3): 1. Assuming 'security' only means military. The referent object can be the person.
2. Forgetting to ask 'security for whom?' Name the referent object.
3. Treating state and human security as identical. They can diverge sharply.
4. Only describing. Analyse + recommend.
5. Broadening security until it means everything. Keep it focused enough to act on.