Political Science Test - 37

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following queston:

Non - Traditional Notions

Non-traditional notions of security go beyond military threats to include a wide range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of human existence. They begin by questioning the traditional referent of security. In doing so, they also question the other three elements of security- what is being secured, from what kind of threats and the approach to security. When we say referent we mean 'Security for who?' In the traditional security inception, the referent is the state with its territory and governing institutions. In the non-traditional conceptions, the referent is expanded. When we ask 'Security for who?' Proponents of non-traditional security reply 'Not just the state but also individuals or communities or indeed all of humankind'. Non-traditional views of security have been called 'human security' or 'global security'.

Human Security is about the protection of people more than the protection of states. Human security and state security should be - and often are - the same thing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of individuals, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Indeed, during the last 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies.

All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. However, there are differences about precisely what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of the 'narrow' concept of human security focus on violent threats to individuals or, as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan puts it, "The protection of communities and individuals from internal violence". Proponents of the 'broad' concept of human security argue that the threat agenda should include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined. Human security policy, they argue, should protect people from these threats as well as from violence. In its broadest formulation, the human security agenda also encompasses economic security and 'threats to human dignity'. Put differently, the broadest formulation stresses what has been called 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear", respectively.

The idea of global security emerged in the 1990s in response to the global nature of threats such as global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu and so on. No country can resolve these problem alone. And, in some situations, one country may have to disproportionately bear the brunt of a global problem such as environmental degradation. For example, due to global warming, a sea level rise of 1.5-2.0 meters would flood 20 percent of Bangladesh, inundate most of the Maldives, and threaten nearly half the population of Thailand. Since these problems are global in nature, international cooperation is vital, even though it is difficult to achieve.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following queston:

Non - Traditional Notions

Non-traditional notions of security go beyond military threats to include a wide range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of human existence. They begin by questioning the traditional referent of security. In doing so, they also question the other three elements of security- what is being secured, from what kind of threats and the approach to security. When we say referent we mean 'Security for who?' In the traditional security inception, the referent is the state with its territory and governing institutions. In the non-traditional conceptions, the referent is expanded. When we ask 'Security for who?' Proponents of non-traditional security reply 'Not just the state but also individuals or communities or indeed all of humankind'. Non-traditional views of security have been called 'human security' or 'global security'.

Human Security is about the protection of people more than the protection of states. Human security and state security should be - and often are - the same thing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of individuals, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Indeed, during the last 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies.

All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. However, there are differences about precisely what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of the 'narrow' concept of human security focus on violent threats to individuals or, as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan puts it, "The protection of communities and individuals from internal violence". Proponents of the 'broad' concept of human security argue that the threat agenda should include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined. Human security policy, they argue, should protect people from these threats as well as from violence. In its broadest formulation, the human security agenda also encompasses economic security and 'threats to human dignity'. Put differently, the broadest formulation stresses what has been called 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear", respectively.

The idea of global security emerged in the 1990s in response to the global nature of threats such as global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu and so on. No country can resolve these problem alone. And, in some situations, one country may have to disproportionately bear the brunt of a global problem such as environmental degradation. For example, due to global warming, a sea level rise of 1.5-2.0 meters would flood 20 percent of Bangladesh, inundate most of the Maldives, and threaten nearly half the population of Thailand. Since these problems are global in nature, international cooperation is vital, even though it is difficult to achieve.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following queston:

Non - Traditional Notions

Non-traditional notions of security go beyond military threats to include a wide range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of human existence. They begin by questioning the traditional referent of security. In doing so, they also question the other three elements of security- what is being secured, from what kind of threats and the approach to security. When we say referent we mean 'Security for who?' In the traditional security inception, the referent is the state with its territory and governing institutions. In the non-traditional conceptions, the referent is expanded. When we ask 'Security for who?' Proponents of non-traditional security reply 'Not just the state but also individuals or communities or indeed all of humankind'. Non-traditional views of security have been called 'human security' or 'global security'.

Human Security is about the protection of people more than the protection of states. Human security and state security should be - and often are - the same thing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of individuals, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Indeed, during the last 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies.

All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. However, there are differences about precisely what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of the 'narrow' concept of human security focus on violent threats to individuals or, as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan puts it, "The protection of communities and individuals from internal violence". Proponents of the 'broad' concept of human security argue that the threat agenda should include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined. Human security policy, they argue, should protect people from these threats as well as from violence. In its broadest formulation, the human security agenda also encompasses economic security and 'threats to human dignity'. Put differently, the broadest formulation stresses what has been called 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear", respectively.

The idea of global security emerged in the 1990s in response to the global nature of threats such as global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu and so on. No country can resolve these problem alone. And, in some situations, one country may have to disproportionately bear the brunt of a global problem such as environmental degradation. For example, due to global warming, a sea level rise of 1.5-2.0 meters would flood 20 percent of Bangladesh, inundate most of the Maldives, and threaten nearly half the population of Thailand. Since these problems are global in nature, international cooperation is vital, even though it is difficult to achieve.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following queston:

Non - Traditional Notions

Non-traditional notions of security go beyond military threats to include a wide range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of human existence. They begin by questioning the traditional referent of security. In doing so, they also question the other three elements of security- what is being secured, from what kind of threats and the approach to security. When we say referent we mean 'Security for who?' In the traditional security inception, the referent is the state with its territory and governing institutions. In the non-traditional conceptions, the referent is expanded. When we ask 'Security for who?' Proponents of non-traditional security reply 'Not just the state but also individuals or communities or indeed all of humankind'. Non-traditional views of security have been called 'human security' or 'global security'.

Human Security is about the protection of people more than the protection of states. Human security and state security should be - and often are - the same thing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of individuals, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Indeed, during the last 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies.

All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. However, there are differences about precisely what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of the 'narrow' concept of human security focus on violent threats to individuals or, as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan puts it, "The protection of communities and individuals from internal violence". Proponents of the 'broad' concept of human security argue that the threat agenda should include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined. Human security policy, they argue, should protect people from these threats as well as from violence. In its broadest formulation, the human security agenda also encompasses economic security and 'threats to human dignity'. Put differently, the broadest formulation stresses what has been called 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear", respectively.

The idea of global security emerged in the 1990s in response to the global nature of threats such as global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu and so on. No country can resolve these problem alone. And, in some situations, one country may have to disproportionately bear the brunt of a global problem such as environmental degradation. For example, due to global warming, a sea level rise of 1.5-2.0 meters would flood 20 percent of Bangladesh, inundate most of the Maldives, and threaten nearly half the population of Thailand. Since these problems are global in nature, international cooperation is vital, even though it is difficult to achieve.