The big idea: The classic security threat was one state's army attacking another. But today's most serious threats often ignore borders and don't come from states at all.
The new threats
- Terrorism
- Cyber attacks
- Pandemics
- Climate and environmental breakdown
- Organised crime
What they have in common: These are non-traditional threats. And because calling something a 'security threat' unlocks extraordinary powers, deciding what counts is itself a political act: the idea of securitization.
- Terrorism — violence by non-state groups to spread fear and pursue political aims, often across borders.
- Cyber attacks — attacks on digital systems (infrastructure, data, elections) by states or non-state actors.
- Pandemics — infectious disease that spreads globally, threatening lives and economies (a health security threat).
- Climate / environmental — climate change, resource scarcity and disasters that drive displacement and conflict.
- Organised crime — trafficking of drugs, people, weapons and money by transnational criminal networks.
Why these threats break the old model: Traditional security assumed a clear enemy (a rival state), a clear border to defend, and a military response. The new threats break all three.
What they demand: So they demand cooperation, resilience and non-military tools. And they blur the line between 'security', 'health', 'development' and 'the environment'.
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.
Because these threats are transnational and non-military, no single state can defeat them alone. A pandemic or cyber attack in one country quickly becomes everyone's problem.
This is why the nature of threats matters: it reshapes who the enemy is, where the threat comes from, and how you can respond.
Why non-traditional threats are so hard
They cross borders faster than any state can seal them, come from actors with no address to deter (networks, viruses, criminals), and cannot be met with military force alone — you defend against a pandemic with health systems, against cyber attacks with resilience and intelligence, against climate change with emissions cuts and adaptation. Their causes are often global and structural, so a purely national, military response tends to fail.
How they connect to each other
The new threats compound one another: climate change drives displacement and resource conflict, which fuels instability that terrorism and organised crime exploit; a pandemic strains states and economies, opening space for crime and unrest. So they are not separate boxes but an interlocking web, which is exactly why a broad, cooperative security lens is needed to see them clearly.
Case study — naming a pandemic a 'security' threat: When a fast-spreading disease crosses borders, governments face a choice of language.
Treated as a routine health issue
- It competes with everything else for ordinary budgets and attention.
Securitized: a 'threat to national security'
- Extraordinary measures become possible: emergency powers, border controls, mass spending, even restrictions on rights.
Securitization cuts both ways
- It can unlock the urgent, coordinated response a real pandemic needs.
- But the same move can be abused to grab power, sideline scrutiny or justify measures that outlast the emergency.
The HL lesson: What we call a 'security threat' is not just a fact but a political act with real consequences for power and rights.
The key point: The nature of threats has changed. The most serious dangers are now often non-traditional: terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, climate and organised crime. They are transnational, non-state and non-military, so they defy borders and military solutions and demand cooperation.
Securitization: Securitization (naming something a 'security' threat) can unlock urgent action but can also be abused to justify emergency powers. So deciding what counts as 'security' is itself political.
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.
Should we treat problems like climate and disease as security threats at all — or does that militarise them and hand governments dangerous powers? And when is securitization justified? Weigh it — and recommend.
The case for treating them as security threats
Naming climate, pandemics or cyber attacks as security threats reflects their true scale — they can kill more people and do more damage than many wars — and securitization mobilises the urgency, funding and international cooperation that a slow 'business as usual' response never would. If the aim is to protect people, then the threats that most endanger them deserve the priority that the 'security' label brings.
The case for caution
But securitization is powerful and easily abused: labelling something a 'security' threat can justify emergency powers, surveillance, border militarisation and the suspension of normal rights and scrutiny, and it can push health, climate or migration into a military framing that does more harm than good. Deciding what to securitize — and keeping it limited, temporary and accountable — is a genuinely contested political judgement.
One view: securitize them
- The new threats are so serious that we should securitize them.
- This unlocks urgency, resources and cooperation.
Another view: be wary
- Securitization is dangerous.
- It militarises problems and hands governments exceptional powers over rights.
Weighing them: the HL judgement: Securitization is a useful but double-edged tool. Naming genuine, survival-level transnational threats as 'security' can rightly drive action.
But it must be bounded
- Limited to real threats.
- Matched to non-military responses where appropriate.
- Kept temporary and accountable, so the emergency does not become a permanent excuse for power.
How changing threats come up in Paper 3: Paper 3 stimulus might show a cyber attack, a pandemic response, or climate-driven displacement. Work through it in three steps.
Three steps for a threat stimulus
Identify
Name the threat as non-traditional: transnational, non-state, non-military.
Analyse
Ask whether and how it is being securitized.
Recommend
Propose a response: usually cooperative, largely non-military, and with limits on emergency powers.
Identify, analyse, recommend.
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 the international community should respond to a major non-traditional security threat.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes (Paper 3): 1. Only thinking of state armies as threats. Name the non-traditional threats.
2. Assuming a military response fits every threat. You can't bomb a pandemic.
3. Ignoring securitization. Naming something 'security' is a political act.
4. Only describing. Analyse + recommend.
5. Forgetting the abuse risk. Emergency powers must be bounded.