Question.

Describe and examine why the state is viewed as a formidable security organisation.

In the contemporary world, national security is as important as international security. After world
war 2 (WW2), states came into an agreement; the United Nations charter that led to the
formation of the united nations orgaganistaions(UNO) later to the united nations (UN). Their
main intention was to prevent future wars through promoting security of individual states using
collective measures. However this pool created a state of anarchy and states started promoting
their own security to deter any threat that comes upon them. Waltz (1979) in Donnelly (2015)
argues that anarchy is still evident, and it’s in anarchy that states act in a self-help and self-
defence system in order to survive.

This further made states to act towards achieving relative gains over absolute gains. In this case,
we have seen countries strengthening their military power majorly acquiring and improving on
the weapons of mass destruction (WMDS) and nuclear weapons. This on the other hand creates a
state of fear in the neighboring states though all operate within the limitations say the rules and
regulations of the UN (Buzan, 1983). It is also noted that the state being the main actor in
international politics, would not leave it behind when matters of security arise to be the main
actor in international security. This can be evident in Clausewitz definition of politics “the
continuation of war by other means.” In my essay, I will define a state its origins and attributes,
security on both national and international levels. I will therefore describe the different trends
that makes a state a formidable security organ, explain these trends and will finish with a
conclusion with other security organizations other than the state and the circumstances under
which they do act.

A state is referred to as apolitical entity governing a population and occupying a defined

territory. According to the Westphalian treaty that brought about the modern state; sovereignty,
defined territory, population, and capacity to engage in the international relations are the major
attributes of a state (Waltz, 1979). On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes gives the origin of the
state from the social contract between the people and the state. Here, people agreed to hand over
some of their rights to the state in exchange for security/ protection. Taking the former, the state
0
stands on five major attributes of sovereignty, population, government, defined territory, and
capacity to enter into relations with other states.

A sovereign state is the one which is fully independent and is insubordinate of no hegemonic
power. This principle gives states whether small or big, rich or poor a right to equality on the
international platform. This is mainly seen in the voting at the general assembly where each
country is entitled to a single vote. Another major attribute of a state is a population. This
population has not to be nomadic (no nomadic state) and the UN does not require it to be only
nationals or not, not even necessarily halogenic. However, a minimum of 100,000 people though
small, the UN recognizes one to be a state. Peter willets argues that the UN has a deficiency to
easing the ease the criteria for statehood and in evidence, there are many new quasi-states units
particularly small islands and are recognized by the UN itself. However, many of these states
remain in doubt of forming a buffer zone between states and other social units. Therefore size the
size matters in order to ensure permanency hence avoiding frugality.

Also a state is attributed by the government. This is a system that exercises authority over a
population in a demarcated territory. Government enables a state to be respected by other states
in the international community and gives it rights and duties to recognition. This authority has to
be exercised over a demarcated territory with well-defined boundaries that have to be defended
at all times. Lastly a state is considered one when it has the capacity to enter into international
relations with other states. Here a state has the ability to enter into the affairs of other states;
bound by the international law.

Security is defined as the state of being free from any threat. And for this sense, considering a
nation state; means the situation when a state is free from threats both internal and externalis
considered to be secure. Therefore national security refers to all measures imposed by the state to
protect itself from internal and external threats. These threats may be directly affect the
population or else the other elements of national power.

The state was, in its origins, a security arrangement and it remains so today(Hampton, 1988). A
huge amount of state resources is directed towards maintaining effective police and armed
forces, implementing anti-terrorist measures, ensuring civil and emergency defenses, using
intelligence to detect and counter external attack and internal subversion; using diplomacy to

1
strengthen alliances and isolate threats and using economic power to encourage cooperation and
isolate or weaken political rivals. Hobbes’ solution to the problem of personal security is the
creation of a political order or sovereign which he terms ‘leviathan’ to protect the people
(Rousseau, 1964).‘Leviathan’ can only come about if individual men and women are prepared to
exchange their personal freedom to individually protect themselves for protection by the
sovereign. The state for Hobbes is essentially a collective security arrangement. But as he
famously indicates, that statist solution to the problem of personal insecurity simultaneously
gives rise to a new threat of insecurity between states; the human security paradigm is becoming
increasingly influential in international relations. Nevertheless, for the time being at least, with a
few notable exceptions like Canada, it remains disproportionately a subject of non-governmental
organizations rather than the foreign policies of states. And it is still far from universally
accepted.

There is, however, an important distinction between security of the state and security of the
person. Personal security is an essential precondition for human flourishing. It frees people to
pursue their own interests, goals, ambitions etc. Without the fear of harm by others provided they
in turn do not violate the harm principle by causing deliberate injury to others. Personal security
is our individual protection from harm by other people. In a nutshell, personal security means
peace of mind. Security of the state refers to a state’s ability to protect itself from external
dangers and menaces: for example, intervention, blockade, invasion, destruction, occupation, or
some other harmful interference by a hostile foreign power or terrorist group. The methods of
state security are analogous to the burglar alarm on my house. The goal of state security is to
deter, prevent or defeat attacks against the state and its population.

Away from the national security, gives us a focus to the international security. States here
collectively come together to put up measures to prevent threats majorly observed on the sub
regional and regional basis. A case in point, regional blocks have been formed like the African
Standby Force (ASF) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) the Arab League among
others to promote regional security. Above all these, there happens to be the UN which took up
the mandate to take up the security concerns of the whole world. This has however created a
period of anarchy that cases such as the arms race, countries fighting wars to maintain their
legitimacy have happened. Forexaple, the United States of America has fought two wars after the

2
cold war (wars on terror) to preserve its legitimacy and secure its population. Therefore,
international security may be defined as the measures put up by the different states to prevent
individual states from threats.

The duty imposed on state to project is values makes it a primary domain as far as security is
concerned. Taking an example on the international community; the rules and regulations set to
govern the world (states and non-sate actors) known as the international law recognizes the state
as the main actor in international relations. This means that all the other actors work either in
partnership with the state or work for the betterment of a state to promote security both on
national and international arena.

The crux of security is captured by Hedley Bull: ‘Security in international politics means none
more than safety: either objective safety, meaning safety which actually exists, or subjective
safety, meaning safety which is felt or [Link] is a condition of human relations.
Safety is order and predictability in our relations with other [Link] and justice providers
at different levels of the multi-layered system havediffering interests, with competition over
power and resources (Albrecht & Kyed, 2010).Addressing deficits in security and justice
provision requires local political will, but this may belacking at local or national levels if it is not
in the interest of local actors (states) or there is acontradiction between donor aspirations and
local political realities (OECD, 2010;Ariyarathne, 2020). This is all left in the hands of the state
to decide upon which to accept and to drop as long as is in line with its goals and objectives.

As a result, from the time of the American and French revolutions onwards, the dominant
security paradigm has viewed the state, now styled the nation state, to reflect its popular basis, as
the fundamental source of social belonging and ergo also personal well-being. The nation state in
the Western liberal tradition is understood as an extension of the will of the individual citizens
who comprise it and thus becomes the supreme moral association within society. It is bound to
preserve and promote just relations among the citizenry, thereby ensuring that they remain free
and equal.

A well-governed nation state is a formidable security organisation. It is for this reason that the
nation state ultimately replaced clans, tribal societies, chiefdoms, free cities, medieval guilds,
duchies, dynastic states and even empires, among others, to become the basic form of modern

3
political organisation. The nation state performs this central task by acting as an effective and
impartial arbiter within society.

In the 21st century, human security has become the major aspect emphasized much through the
human rights. Donors often work with countries, institutions or actors where concerns about
adherence to human rights norms exist (HMG, 2011b; Gill, 2013) and where human rights
violations have been or are being committed by security and justice actors (Ariyarathne, 2020)
Safety, security and justice are the areas in which citizens’ rights are most at risk of being
violated (HMG, 2011b). A state’s obligations to human rights norms entails maintaining an
effective and accountable security sector to prevent other actors from violating the rights of
citizens.

The UN in this aspect gives full rights and duties to the state to observe the rights of the people
above other actors without fail. Citizens, particularly victims of human rights abuses, are
unlikely to trust public institutions that retain or hire individuals responsible for violations or
serious crimes under international law. This impairs an institution’s ability effectively deliver its
mandate (OHCHR, 2006). Donor engagement with security providers should ensure that they
‘respect human rights and are not themselves a threat to citizens’ (Nathan, 2008, p. 31) which is
all bound to states.

It has however been noted that the varying ideas between Political will and vested interestsin the
enjoyment of these [Link] those in power to undertake reforms to protect human
rights is challenging, and it may not be in their interests to do so, especially when the very same
actors may be responsible for human rights violations (Galletti &Wodzicki, 2010). As such, there
may be a contradiction between donor aspirations and the political realities in many fragile and
conflict affected states. Buzzan(1983) argues that without a widespread and quite deeply rooted
idea of a state among the citizens, the state institutions by themselves would have great difficulty
functioning and surviving though this is indicated in some dictatorships like Samoa in Nicaragua.
Tracing the essence of the state to the social life gives us a major clue about the approach of
national security. If the heart of the state resides in the idea of it held in the minds of the
population, then that idea itself becomes a major object of national security.

4
Still on the human rights, non-state armed actors have posed a threat in their [Link]
presence of non-state armed actors, including rebel groups,militias and criminal networks, poses
particular human rights dilemmas and can disturb andundermine peace- and state-building
processes, which risks the return of violent conflict. Donorsupport to strengthen state security
and justice institutions can challenge the political andeconomic agendas of non-state armed
groups by strengthening or reconstructing state structures and institutions (Hofmann &
Schneckener, 2011).

Finally if I take a step from the human rights, there are the broader aspects of human security
taking the contemporary challenges such as food security, economic security, and environmental
security among others. These come as new trends/modern conceptualization of security other
than the traditional way; aims at improving the welfare of the human being. The state therefore
takes obligations and duty either alone or in conjunction with other non-state actors in the
realization of these security models. Forexample, it is the duty of the state to provide health
services, fight poverty among the people, formulate and enforce laws that conserve the
environment and ensure that the population avails quantity and nutritious food.

In concluding my essay, states have however not been able to realize their primaries’ as
formidable security organizationsespecially in fragile states and here non-state actors are the
main providers of safety, security and justice (OECDDAC,2007a, p. 6). This may be because
State provision is [Link] and conflict-affected states lack the financial,human and
physical capital to deliver effective and accountable safety, security andjustice (Baker & Scheye,
2007). In this case, the role of the state is vandalized and the non-state actors take over. These
are always international organizations, local and international non-governmentalorganizations.
Non state actors may also provide safety, security and justice in fragile states simply because
State provision is ineffective. The settlement of cases can take a long time due to bureaucratic
procedures and the necessity of hard evidence (UNDP, 2012). This has always been portrayed
through the violation of human rights especially on the politically apprehended persons. Cases of
violence , torture and delayed justice have been recorded in most fragile states like Somalia ,
Nigeria, Mali , Chad among others following military take overs.( AU, 2013)

It has also been noted that in cases where State provision is inaccessible, we have seen non state
actors assuming authority of providing security. State providers might not speak the local
5
language, are often located far from communities, and can be expensive. Evidence from
Bangladesh, Ecuador, Malawi, Niger, Papua New Guinea and Uganda demonstrates that even
when people are located close to state courts and the police, various forms of non-state and
informal provision are still the preferred option (UNDP, 2012). This is because the citizens often
hope for Inappropriate outcomesandState’s actors such as the police, prosecutors and state courts
may be seen as overly retributive, whilst people may prefer restorative justice applied by non-
state actors (UNDP, 2012).

This has drastically promoted Lack of trust in state [Link] institutions in fragile and
conflict-affected states are often captured by political and criminal interests or discriminate
against segments of society. They may be seen as illegitimate in some contexts due the history of
state-citizen relations. Non-state providers are seen as more legitimate because they are part of
local communities and serve their interests (UNDP, 2012).

6
Bibliography

Albrecht, P. A., & Kyed, H. M. (2010). Justice and Security:-when the State Isn't the Main
Provider. DIIS

Ariyarathne, N. S. (2020). Theoretical Approaches to Avoid Challenges in the post–Conflict

Situation. Journal of Society & Change, 14(3)

Baker, B., & Scheye, E. (2007). Multi-layered justice and security delivery in post-conflict and
fragile states: Analysis. Conflict, Security & Development, 7(4)

Barry Buzan (1983). People States and Fear: the national security problem in international
relations. Harvester Press Group. Brighton, Sussex.

Donnelly, J. (2015). The discourse of anarchy in IR. International Theory, 7(3)

Galletti, N., &Wodzicki, M. (2010). Securing human rights: Shifting the security sector reform
paradigm. The Future of Security Sector Reform (pp. 281)

Gill, P. (2013). Organised crime. In Routledge Companion to Intelligence Studies. Routledge

Hampton, J. (1988). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge University Press

Hofmann, C., & Schneckener, U. (2011). Engaging non-state armed actors in state-and peace-
building: options and strategies. International review of the Red Cross, 93(883)

OHCHR, U. (2006). Principles and guidelines for a human rights approach to poverty reduction
strategies. United Nations, Geneva

7
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a
glance 2010: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD

UNDP A, (2012). Africa Human Development Report 2012 Towards a Food Secure Future (No.
267636). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Union, A. (2013). 50th anniversary solemn declaration