Q.Highlight any six criteria proposed for the new permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Security studies, as a field, broadly categorizes threats into traditional and non-traditional notions of security. This distinction helps us understand the evolving nature of challenges states and individuals face in the international system. The traditional notion of security has historically dominated international relations and focuses on a specific set of threats and responses.

The traditional notion of security is primarily state-centric, meaning it views the state as the main object to be secured. Its core concern is the protection of a state's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity from external military threats. This perspective emphasizes the use of military force, or the threat of its use, as the primary means to achieve security. States build armies, form alliances, and engage in deterrence to protect themselves from other states. Wars between nations, military invasions, and border disputes are classic examples of traditional security concerns, as they directly challenge a state's existence or its ability to control its own territory and affairs.

In contrast, non-traditional security broadens the scope beyond military threats and state-centric concerns. It focuses on human security, addressing threats that endanger the survival and well-being of individuals and communities, often transcending national borders. These threats are typically non-military in nature and include issues like climate change, pandemics, poverty, food scarcity, and transnational terrorism. Responses to non-traditional threats often require international cooperation, humanitarian aid, and policy changes rather than purely military solutions.

Let us examine the given options in light of this understanding:

• (A) Russia – Ukraine War: This is a direct military conflict between two sovereign states, Russia and Ukraine. It involves the use of conventional military force, territorial invasion, and a direct challenge to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This scenario perfectly aligns with the traditional notion of security, where one state poses an existential military threat to another. …

The concept of co-operative security emerged in the post-Cold War era as the nature of global threats began to shift. During the Cold War, security thinking was dominated by the idea of collective security—formal alliances like NATO where an attack on one member was treated as an attack on all. But as the bipolar world dissolved, a new range of dangers came into focus: terrorism, climate change, pandemics, cyber-attacks, drug trafficking, and transnational crime. These non-traditional threats don't respect borders, can't be deterred by nuclear arsenals, and can't be solved by any single country acting alone.

Co-operative security responds to this reality. It's built on the recognition that states must pool their resources, share intelligence, and coordinate policies to tackle problems that are inherently transnational. Unlike collective security, which is reactive and alliance-based (you attack us, we all respond), co-operative security is proactive and inclusive. It doesn't require formal treaties or membership in a military bloc. Instead, it brings together countries—sometimes rivals—around a shared interest in managing a specific threat.

Consider the difference in approach. Collective security under NATO, for instance, is about defending member states from external military aggression. Co-operative security, by contrast, might involve India, China, and ASEAN nations working together on maritime piracy in the Indian Ocean, or European and African states collaborating on migration and human trafficking. The emphasis is on dialogue, consensus, and joint problem-solving rather than deterrence and defense pacts.

The United Nations Security Council, established in 1945, reflects the power realities of the post-World War II era. Its five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—hold veto power and bear primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Yet the world has changed dramatically since then. The rise of new economic powers, the expansion of democracy, and shifting geopolitical dynamics have made the Council's composition increasingly unrepresentative. India's bid for permanent membership sits at the heart of the broader debate about Security Council reform.

When evaluating India's claim, we need to ask what qualifies a nation for permanent membership in the body tasked with global security. The answer lies in a combination of hard power—economic and military strength—and soft power—political stability, democratic governance, and the ability to contribute constructively to international order.

India's growing economic power positions it as one of the world's largest economies, with a GDP that ranks among the top five globally. This economic heft translates into influence in international trade, investment flows, and development partnerships. A nation with significant economic resources can contribute meaningfully to peacekeeping operations, humanitarian interventions, and the financial architecture that underpins global stability. Economic power also signals that a country has a stake in the existing international system and the capacity to shape its evolution.

Equally important is India's stable political system. As the world's largest democracy, India has maintained constitutional governance, regular elections, and peaceful transfers of power for over seven decades. This democratic stability is rare among nations of comparable size and diversity. A permanent Security Council member must be predictable, accountable to its citizens, and committed to rule-based international order. India's democratic credentials provide assurance that its voice in the Council would reflect not authoritarian caprice but the considered judgment of a pluralistic society.

Together, these two factors—economic power and political stability—create the foundation for effective global leadership. They demonstrate both the capacity to act and the legitimacy to lead.

The question draws on a key shift in how we understand security — a shift that happened especially after the Cold War. For decades, security meant military threats: armies, borders, invasions. But from the 1990s onward, scholars and policymakers began arguing that security must also include non-military dangers that threaten human life on a large scale. This is the idea behind "human security" and the broadening of the security agenda.

Assertion (A) is straightforwardly true. HIV-AIDS, Bird Flu, and Coronavirus are all health epidemics that have caused massive loss of life, disrupted economies, and overwhelmed healthcare systems. They are not traditional military threats, but they are very real threats to the safety and well-being of populations. International bodies like the United Nations and the World Health Organization now treat such pandemics as security issues.

Reason (R) is also true. It captures the core insight of the expanded security concept: that security is not just about protecting territory from foreign armies, but about protecting people from a wide range of dangers — including disease, poverty, environmental disasters, and terrorism. This is the very logic that leads us to classify health epidemics as security threats.

Security studies, as a field, has evolved significantly, broadening its scope beyond the traditional focus on military threats between states. Historically, the primary concern of national security was the protection of a state's territory, sovereignty, and political independence from external military aggression. This perspective defines what are known as traditional security threats. However, the late 20th and early 21st centuries have witnessed the emergence of a diverse array of challenges that do not fit neatly into this conventional framework, leading to the concept of "new" or "non-traditional" sources of threat.

Traditional security threats are predominantly military in nature and typically involve states as the main actors. These threats are characterized by the use or threat of force by one state against another, aiming to achieve political objectives, seize territory, or undermine a rival's power. The classic example of such a threat is a direct military conflict or invasion. The focus is on state survival and the balance of power, with responses often involving military deterrence, alliances, or conventional warfare.

In contrast, new sources of threat to security are often non-military, transnational, and frequently involve non-state actors. They challenge the security of individuals and societies as much as, if not more than, the security of states. These threats are complex, often diffuse, and require a broader range of responses beyond purely military ones, including international cooperation, economic measures, and social interventions.

Let's examine the given options:

• Terrorism: This is a quintessential new source of threat. Terrorism involves the use of violence, often against civilians, by non-state actors to achieve political or ideological goals. Its transnational nature, ability to strike anywhere, and psychological impact make it a distinct challenge that transcends traditional state-on-state warfare.
• Hijacking of planes: While hijacking has existed in various forms, its modern manifestation, particularly when linked to terrorist groups or used as a weapon (as seen in 9/11), firmly places it in the category of new threats. It involves non-state actors, targets civilian infrastructure and lives, and aims to create widespread fear and disruption, often with global implications. …

The question asks you to identify which option does not belong to the category of threats to global security. To answer this, we need a clear sense of what "global security" means in contemporary political science and international relations.

The traditional idea of security was about protecting a nation's borders from military attack by another state. But since the end of the Cold War, the concept has broadened dramatically. Scholars and policymakers now recognise that security is not just about armies and missiles. It is also about human well-being and the stability of the planet itself. This expanded view is often called human security or comprehensive security.

Within this framework, threats to global security are those dangers that are transnational — they cross borders easily, affect large populations, and cannot be solved by any one country acting alone. They require international cooperation.

Let us examine each option against this standard.

Global warming (option a) is a classic example of a transnational threat. It does not respect national boundaries. A rise in global temperatures leads to melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and disruptions to agriculture. These effects can trigger mass migration, food and water shortages, and even conflict over dwindling resources. It is widely considered one of the most serious long-term threats to global security.

International terrorism (option b) is another clear threat. Terrorist networks operate across borders, planning attacks that can strike any country. The goal is often to create fear, destabilise governments, and disrupt normal life. Because it is not confined to one nation, it demands a coordinated global response.

Epidemics (option c) are also a major global security concern. A disease outbreak in one part of the world can travel rapidly through international travel and trade, as the world saw with COVID-19, SARS, and Ebola. Pandemics can overwhelm healthcare systems, cripple economies, and cause social and political instability. They are a direct threat to human security on a global scale.

Security studies underwent a fundamental shift in how threats are understood and categorized. For most of the twentieth century, security meant national security in its narrowest sense: protecting territorial integrity and sovereignty from external military aggression by other states. War between nations, the buildup of conventional armed forces, and the manufacturing of weapons to deter or fight such wars all belonged to this traditional security paradigm. The state was both the referent object (what needed protection) and the primary actor (the source of threat).

The end of the Cold War, however, revealed that many of the gravest dangers to human well-being and state stability did not fit this mold. Non-traditional security emerged as a concept to capture threats that are transnational in nature, often involve non-state actors, and target not just the state apparatus but societies, economies, and individuals. These threats cross borders easily, require cooperative rather than purely military responses, and frequently operate in the shadows rather than on conventional battlefields.

Terrorism exemplifies non-traditional security threats perfectly. It involves sub-state or non-state groups—militant organizations, extremist networks, lone actors—who use violence deliberately to instill fear, coerce governments, or destabilize societies. Unlike war, which is waged between recognized states with identifiable armies, terrorism is asymmetric: the perpetrators blend into civilian populations, strike soft targets, and exploit globalization's infrastructure (communication networks, financial systems, porous borders) to plan and execute attacks. A terrorist incident in one country can be planned in another and financed from a third, making it inherently transnational and resistant to traditional military solutions alone.

Let's consider why the other options belong to the traditional security domain:

• War is the archetypal traditional security concern—organized armed conflict between states, governed (at least nominally) by international law, involving uniformed militaries and clear territorial objectives.
• Manufacturing of weapons feeds directly into the traditional security calculus of military preparedness, deterrence, and the balance of power among states. …

Security, in its broadest sense, is fundamentally about the absence of threats to core values and the ability to respond effectively when those values are challenged. Historically, the concept of security was largely confined to the protection of a state's territory and sovereignty from external military aggression. However, over time, the understanding of what constitutes a "threat" has expanded significantly, leading to a more comprehensive typology in security studies. This evolution acknowledges that dangers to well-being and stability can arise from many sources, not just armies.

Broadly, security is related to two main types of threats: traditional threats and non-traditional threats.

Traditional Threats

Traditional threats primarily focus on the military dimension of security and the protection of the state. These are the classic concerns that have dominated international relations for centuries.

• Military Aggression and War: This is the most direct and historically recognized threat. It involves the use or threat of force by one state against another, aiming to conquer territory, impose political will, or destroy capabilities. Examples include interstate wars, border disputes, and invasions.
• Arms Races and Proliferation: The accumulation of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological), by states is considered a traditional threat. It can lead to instability, increase the likelihood of conflict, and pose existential dangers.
• Territorial Disputes: Conflicts over land, maritime boundaries, or resources located within disputed territories often escalate into military confrontations, directly threatening a state's integrity.

Non-Traditional Threats

Non-traditional threats represent a broader and more complex category, often transcending national borders and affecting individuals and communities as much as, or even more than, states. These threats are typically non-military in nature, though they can have military implications or require military responses. They challenge the very notion of security by highlighting vulnerabilities beyond conventional warfare.

• Human Security Threats: This category focuses on the safety and well-being of individuals. It includes:

  • Poverty and Underdevelopment: Widespread poverty, lack of access to basic necessities like food, water, and shelter, and economic inequality can lead to social unrest, political instability, and even conflict within and between states.
  • Disease and Pandemics: The rapid spread of infectious diseases, as seen with global pandemics, can overwhelm healthcare systems, cripple economies, and cause massive loss of life, posing a direct threat to human populations and national stability.
  • Illiteracy and Lack of Education: A poorly educated populace can hinder economic development, perpetuate cycles of poverty, and make societies more vulnerable to exploitation and extremism.
  • Human Rights Violations: Systematic abuses of human rights can lead to internal conflicts, refugee crises, and international intervention, destabilizing regions.

• Environmental Security Threats: These threats arise from environmental degradation and climate change, impacting human life and state stability.

  • Climate Change: Global warming, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and desertification can lead to resource scarcity (especially water and arable land), forced migration, and increased competition for dwindling resources, potentially sparking conflicts.
  • Resource Depletion: Over-exploitation of natural resources like water, forests, and fisheries can create shortages, leading to economic hardship and disputes.
  • Natural Disasters: Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and droughts can devastate infrastructure, displace populations, and strain national resources, requiring significant humanitarian and security responses.

• Economic Security Threats: These relate to the stability and resilience of national and global economies.

  • Global Financial Crises: Economic downturns, market crashes, and debt crises can have ripple effects across the world, leading to unemployment, social unrest, and political instability.
  • Energy Insecurity: Dependence on external sources for energy, or disruptions in energy supply, can make states vulnerable to political pressure and economic shocks.
  • Trade Wars and Protectionism: Disruptions to international trade can harm economies, reduce global cooperation, and create tensions between states. …

In the field of security studies, it is crucial to distinguish between different types of threats and the mechanisms employed to address them. Security is broadly categorized into traditional and non-traditional aspects. Traditional security primarily focuses on military threats, such as war, aggression, and the use of force between states. It deals with the protection of a state's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence through military means, deterrence, and defense.

Non-traditional security, on the other hand, encompasses a wider range of challenges that transcend national borders and often do not involve military aggression between states. These threats include issues like terrorism, global warming, pandemics, large-scale migration, food and water scarcity, and human rights abuses. Addressing non-traditional security threats often requires cooperation among a diverse set of actors, including states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society groups.

Alliance building is a concept firmly rooted in traditional security. It refers to the process by which two or more sovereign states enter into a formal agreement, typically a treaty, to provide mutual assistance and collective defense in the event of an attack by an external party. The primary purpose of such alliances is to enhance the security of member states by deterring potential aggressors or by pooling military resources and capabilities for collective defense. These alliances are fundamentally state-centric, involving commitments to military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and sometimes joint military exercises.

Part (a)

The Soviet Union formally ceased to exist on 26 December 1991, breaking up into fifteen independent republics. Because the USSR had been one of the five founding permanent members of the UN Security Council since 1945, its collapse raised the question of who would hold that seat. On 24 December 1991 Russian President Boris Yeltsin informed the UN Secretary-General that Russia, backed by the other Commonwealth of Independent States members, would continue the USSR's membership in all UN organs, including the Security Council. Russia was the largest successor state, controlled the Soviet nuclear weapons and assumed Soviet debts and treaty obligations, so the succession was accepted without objection and without any amendment to the Charter. Russia continues to hold the permanent seat with veto power. …