Security in the Contemporary World — Traditional and Non-traditional Notions

At its simplest, security means freedom from threats — but not every danger counts. The book reserves the word for threats that endanger a society’s core values, so seriously that something must be done about them. The chapter’s organising idea is the contrast between two notions: the traditional one, in which the state is the thing to be protected and the main threat is military force from outside or within, and the non-traditional one, which widens both who is to be secured — people, not just states — and what threatens them — terrorism, poverty, disease, the abuse of human rights. Questions ask you to place an idea on that map: is deterrence traditional or non-traditional, is a treaty arms control or disarmament, is a displaced person a refugee or not.

The Traditional Notion — External and Internal

In the traditional view the greatest danger is military threat from another country, aimed at a state’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and endangering the lives of its people. A government facing war has three basic choices: to surrender, to prevent the other side from attacking by threatening unacceptable damage, or to defend itself if war breaks out. Preventing war is called deterrence, and limiting or ending war is called defence. Two further traditional strategies are the balance of power — building up one’s own strength, or joining others, so that no rival becomes too powerful — and alliance building, a coalition of states coordinating their actions against military attack, formalised in written treaties and based on interests rather than permanent friendship.

Traditional security also has an internal side — peace and order within a state. After the Second World War, the book notes, many newly independent countries of Asia and Africa faced threats from neighbours and from separatist movements within at the same time, so for them internal and external security were tangled together. Traditional security also includes cooperation to limit violence: disarmament requires states to give up certain kinds of weapons altogether, while arms control regulates the acquisition or development of weapons; and confidence building is the exchange of information about military intentions and plans so that rivals do not go to war through misunderstanding.

Disarmament or arms control? The treaties the book names
TreatyTypeWhat it does
Biological Weapons Convention (1972)DisarmamentBans the making and possession of biological weapons
Chemical Weapons Convention (1992)DisarmamentBans the making and possession of chemical weapons
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972)Arms controlStopped the US and USSR from using ballistic missile defence as the basis of a large-scale defence system
SALT I, SALT II and STARTArms controlUS–Soviet agreements limiting, and later reducing, strategic nuclear weapons
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968)Arms controlAllowed only the states that had tested nuclear weapons before 1967 to keep them; others had to give up the option
⚠️ The NPT regulates — it does not abolish
The NPT is classed as arms control, not disarmament, because it did not abolish nuclear weapons: it let the five states that had tested before 1967 keep theirs and barred everyone else. That asymmetry is exactly why India has refused to sign it, calling it discriminatory.

Non-traditional Security — Human and Global

Non-traditional notions go beyond military threats. Human security puts the protection of people above the protection of states, because, the book observes, states have often been a threat to their own people. Its narrow version focuses on protecting individuals from violent threats; the broad version adds threats such as hunger, disease and natural disasters — "freedom from want" as well as "freedom from fear" — and the broadest adds economic security and human dignity. Global security concerns threats that no country can tackle alone, such as global warming, international terrorism and health epidemics.

  • Terrorism — political violence that deliberately targets civilians in order to use the climate of fear as a political weapon.
  • Human rights — political, economic and social, and the rights of colonised and indigenous peoples; the debate is over whether the international community should intervene to stop abuses, and who decides.
  • Global poverty — low incomes and growth concentrated in the poorer countries, which widens the gap between rich and poor states.
  • Migration — refugees are people who flee war, natural disaster or political persecution across an international border; internally displaced people have fled their homes but remain within their own country.
  • Health epidemics — diseases such as HIV/AIDS, bird flu and SARS spread across borders through migration, business, tourism and military operations.
⚠️ Refugee or internally displaced?
The single test is the international border. Someone who leaves home because of violence but stays inside the country is internally displaced; the same person becomes a refugee only on crossing into another state.

India’s Security Strategy

India has faced both traditional threats — wars with Pakistan in 1947–48, 1965, 1971 and 1999, and with China in 1962 — and non-traditional ones. The book describes India’s security strategy as having four components: strengthening its military capabilities, including the nuclear tests of 1974 and 1998, which India justified as necessary for national security; strengthening international norms and institutions — India was a voice for Asian-African solidarity, decolonisation and disarmament, a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, and has signed treaties on climate change; meeting security challenges within the country, by accommodating groups through democratic politics; and developing the economy to lift its people out of poverty and reduce inequality.

Key takeaways

  • Security means freedom from threats to core values; the traditional notion protects the state from military force, the non-traditional notion widens both the object and the threats.
  • Traditional strategies: deterrence (preventing war), defence (limiting or ending it), balance of power, and alliance building.
  • Disarmament abolishes a kind of weapon (BWC 1972, CWC 1992); arms control regulates (ABM 1972, SALT, START, NPT 1968).
  • Confidence building is sharing information about military intentions to avoid war by misunderstanding.
  • Human security protects people; its narrow form covers violent threats, its broad form adds hunger, disease and disasters.
  • A refugee crosses an international border; an internally displaced person stays within the country.
  • India’s strategy: military strength, international norms and institutions, internal accommodation, and economic development.

Practice questions (8)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

  1. In the traditional notion of security, preventing a war by threatening the enemy with unacceptable damage is called:

    1. Defence
    2. Deterrence
    3. Disarmament
    4. Confidence building
    Show answer

    Answer: B — Deterrence

    Deterrence is about preventing war before it starts by making the cost of attack unacceptable. Defence is the near-miss: it refers to limiting or ending a war once it has broken out, so the two differ by timing.

  2. Which of the following agreements is an example of arms control rather than disarmament?

    1. The Chemical Weapons Convention
    2. The Biological Weapons Convention
    3. A treaty banning landmines in all countries
    4. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
    Show answer

    Answer: D — The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

    The ABM Treaty of 1972 regulated how the US and USSR could use missile defences — it limited rather than abolished, which is arms control. The chemical and biological conventions ban a whole class of weapon outright, which is disarmament, and so does a total ban on landmines.

  3. A family forced from its village by armed conflict settles in a camp in another district of the same country. In the language of the chapter, the family is:

    1. Refugees
    2. Economic migrants
    3. Internally displaced people
    4. Stateless persons
    Show answer

    Answer: C — Internally displaced people

    They have fled their home but remain within their own country, so they are internally displaced. They would be refugees only if they had crossed an international border — that border is the whole difference — and nothing suggests they have lost their citizenship.

  4. Assertion (A): India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Reason (R): India regards the treaty as discriminatory because it allows only the states that tested before 1967 to keep nuclear weapons.

    1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
    2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
    3. A is true, but R is false
    4. A is false, but R is true
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

    India has not signed the NPT, and the reason it gives is the one in R: the treaty divides the world into states allowed nuclear weapons and states forbidden them. Since R is India’s stated reason for A, it is the correct explanation.

  5. The broad notion of human security, unlike the narrow notion, includes:

    1. Only protection from external military attack
    2. Threats such as hunger, disease and natural disasters
    3. Only the security of the state and its territory
    4. Only protection of individuals from violence
    Show answer

    Answer: B — Threats such as hunger, disease and natural disasters

    The broad notion adds "freedom from want" — hunger, disease and natural disasters — to "freedom from fear". Protection of individuals from violence alone is the narrow notion, which is the option meant to catch anyone who remembers only that human security is about people.

  6. Exchanging information about military plans and intentions between rival countries, so that neither goes to war through misunderstanding, is known as:

    1. Confidence building
    2. Balance of power
    3. Alliance building
    4. Deterrence
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Confidence building

    Confidence building is the cooperative practice of sharing information about military intentions so that rivals are not surprised. Balance of power and alliance building are about strength — matching or pooling it — rather than about transparency between rivals.

  7. Consider the following statements about alliances in the traditional notion of security:
    1. Alliances are usually formalised in written treaties.
    2. Alliances are based on national interests and can change when interests change.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. Only 1
    2. Only 2
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: C — Both 1 and 2

    Both are correct. The book describes an alliance as a coalition of states coordinating against military attack, usually formalised in written treaties, and stresses that alliances rest on interests and may shift when interests do. Choosing only 1 treats alliances as permanent friendships, which the book explicitly denies.

  8. Which of the following is NOT one of the components of India’s security strategy described in the book?

    1. Strengthening its military capabilities
    2. Strengthening international norms and institutions
    3. Joining a permanent military alliance with one superpower
    4. Developing the economy to reduce poverty and inequality
    Show answer

    Answer: C — Joining a permanent military alliance with one superpower

    The four components are military strength, international norms and institutions, meeting internal challenges through democratic accommodation, and economic development. Joining a superpower’s military bloc is the opposite of the non-alignment India championed, which is why it is the odd one out.