What Is the Political/Social Implication of a State Orientated Approach to Security?

Abstract

Human security is a critical issue that is addressed using dynamic and practical policy undertakings, involving the distinguished risks facing government and the citizens. The social theory of war alludes to a theoretical phenomenon that is different from the existing political and social domain.  Evaluation of the political and social environments provides dimensions that facilitates focusing on identification of threats, dangers, and other actors. Nations in the modern-day lack the utmost possession of sovereignty in all sectors, by passing some responsibilities to the higher actors. Globalization has resulted in increased threats towards human security instigating securitization. Politically, security can refer to the stability that exists in a state, alliance, or regional grouping and it involves the absence of military conflicts. The political arena is affected by the emphasis placed on war, targeting individuals in the government. The balance of power explains the shifts that occur in ranks and status of the actors involved, facilitating an understanding of the social ties in the society. The motivation to emerge victorious leads actors to be engaged in a relationship that provides prospects of winning without considering other social variables.

What Is the Political/Social Implication of a State Orientated Approach to Security?            

Human security is a critical issue that is addressed using dynamic and practical policy undertakings, involving the distinguished risks facing the governments and their citizens (Mearsheiner, 2012) (Bilgin, 2003). The fact that threats to security differ across countries and time shows that there are various political and social implications in approaching security aspects (Donnelly, 2000). The concept of state orientated approach encompasses the actors transforming issues that emerge within a nation into security concerns (Bilgin, 2003). In this concept, the alarm raised might not be of pronounced significance to the survival of a state, rather they can be subjects constructed to be regarded as problems. According to Sharma (2014), the social theory of war alludes to a theoretical platform that is different from the existing political and social domain.  Evaluation of the political and social environments provides dimensions that facilitate focusing on identification of threats, dangers, and other actors (Ondrejcsák, 2014). Sharma (2014) reviews that the nature of wars experienced in the eighteenth century was influenced by the actors involved. For instance, during this period the political organization in Europe was mainly characterized by dynasties. Consequently, the conflicts that existed between different states was formulated in a way that targeted their low quality. Ondrejcsák (2014) notes that since the cold war came to an end, there has been drastic changes in the international arena concerning security. Nations in the modern-day lack the utmost possession of sovereignty in all sectors by passing some responsibilities to the higher actors. Through agreements, states have formed security blocks to enhance protection from hostile nations and other potential enemies as a group. Globalization has resulted in increased threats towards human security instigating securitization (Heurlin & Bertel, 2009).  According to Charrett (2009), securitization occurs when the actors identify an existential risk that requires being addressed immediately including the use of extreme measures to counter the threat (Alcalde & Grasa, 2009). It is important to understand the implications of state-oriented approach on the politics and social life…

Order a Similar or Custom Paper from our Writers