Q.Which among the following would you consider as a traditional security concern / non-traditional security concern / not a threat?
a. The spread of chikungunya / dengue fever
b. Inflow of workers from a neighbouring nation
c. Emergence of a group demanding nationhood for their region
d. Emergence of a group demanding autonomy for their region
e. A newspaper that is critical of the armed forces in the country

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.

• (B) Continuous rise in the global temperature: This refers to climate change, an environmental issue. It is a non-military, transnational threat that affects human populations globally, leading to consequences like extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and resource scarcity. This falls squarely under non-traditional security.

• (C) 9/11 attack on USA: While a violent act, the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a non-state actor (Al-Qaeda) and represent transnational terrorism. This type of threat, originating from non-state entities and operating across borders, is a hallmark of non-traditional security challenges, even though it involves violence. It challenges the state's ability to protect its citizens from threats that do not come from other states.

• (D) Spread of COVID-19 epidemic in the world: This is a global health crisis, a pandemic. It is a non-military, transnational threat that directly impacts human health, economies, and social stability worldwide. This is a clear example of a non-traditional security concern.

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 concept also differs sharply from internal security measures. While a state certainly strengthens its own defenses—border controls, intelligence agencies, counter-terrorism units—co-operative security is inherently international. It's about what happens between states, not within them. A country can have robust internal security and still participate in co-operative security frameworks, but the two operate at different levels.

Looking at the options, we can rule out the idea that co-operative security is driven exclusively by developed countries. That would be unilateral or hegemonic security, not co-operative. Similarly, NATO's collective security arrangements are a specific, alliance-based model that predates and differs from co-operative security. And internal security measures, however important, are a domestic concern, not an international co-operative framework.

What remains is the essence of the concept: multiple countries coming together to decide on collective solutions to non-traditional threats. This is the hallmark of co-operative security—shared decision-making, shared responsibility, and a recognition that in an interconnected world, security is a common good that requires common effort.

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.

Now, does Reason (R) correctly explain Assertion (A)? Yes. The reason health epidemics are seen as new threats to security is precisely because our understanding of security has expanded beyond the military. If security were still defined only in terms of armed conflict, a virus would not count as a security threat. It is the broadening of the concept — exactly what Reason (R) describes — that allows us to see epidemics as security problems. So (R) is not just a true statement; it is the underlying justification for (A).

Therefore, the correct option is (A): Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A).

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.
• Use of drones: The proliferation and evolving capabilities of drones, especially their potential use by non-state actors for surveillance, attacks, or delivering harmful substances, represent a significant new security challenge. Drones enable asymmetric warfare, bypass traditional defenses, and blur the lines between state and non-state capabilities, making them a novel concern.
• War: War, understood as large-scale armed conflict between states or organized groups, is the most prominent example of a traditional security threat. While the nature of warfare evolves with technology, the fundamental concept of organized violence between opposing forces, often state-backed, to achieve political ends remains a core traditional security concern.

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.

Now consider rising prices (option d). While rising prices — especially for essential goods like food and fuel — can cause hardship, protests, and even political instability within a country, they are not inherently a global security threat in the same sense as the other three. Inflation is primarily an economic issue. It is often national or regional in its causes and effects. It does not, by itself, cross borders as a direct danger to life and security in the way a pandemic or a terrorist attack does. A country can manage its own inflation through monetary and fiscal policy; it does not require a global security coalition to address it.

Therefore, the odd one out is rising prices.

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.
• Internal disturbances might seem ambiguous, but in security studies typology they typically refer to civil unrest, insurgencies, or secessionist movements that challenge state authority from within—still fundamentally about the state's monopoly on violence and territorial control, hence traditional.

Terrorism also blurs the line between domestic and international security. A group may have local grievances but global reach, or international ideology but local targets. Combating it demands intelligence sharing across borders, financial tracking, counter-radicalization programs, and community engagement—tools far removed from the tanks and treaties of traditional security.

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.

• Cyber Security Threats: With increasing reliance on digital infrastructure, threats in cyberspace have become critical.

  • Cyber Warfare: State-sponsored or non-state actor attacks on critical national infrastructure (power grids, financial systems, communication networks) can cripple a nation without firing a single shot.
  • Data Theft and Espionage: Stealing sensitive government, corporate, or personal data can compromise national security, economic competitiveness, and individual privacy.
  • Disinformation Campaigns: The spread of false information through digital channels can undermine public trust, influence elections, and destabilize societies.

• Transnational Terrorism: While terrorism can involve violence, it is often considered a non-traditional threat when perpetrated by non-state actors operating across borders, using unconventional tactics to achieve political aims. It aims to create fear and destabilize societies, often targeting civilians.

• Migration and Refugee Crises: Large-scale movements of people, often fleeing conflict, persecution, or environmental disasters, can strain the resources of host countries, create social tensions, and pose humanitarian and security challenges.

The modern understanding of security recognizes that these diverse threats are often interconnected. Poverty can exacerbate environmental degradation, which in turn can fuel migration and conflict. A global pandemic can cripple economies and expose vulnerabilities in national security infrastructure. Addressing security today requires a holistic approach that considers this complex web of challenges.

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.

The statement provided incorrectly attributes alliance building to NGOs and links it primarily to defending against non-traditional security. While NGOs do form coalitions and networks, their purpose is generally advocacy, humanitarian aid, or policy influence, often addressing non-traditional security issues. These coalitions are distinct from military alliances formed by states. NGOs do not possess military capabilities for defense in the same way states do, nor do they typically engage in formal military alliance building. Their strength lies in mobilizing public opinion, providing services, and influencing policy, rather than collective military deterrence.

Therefore, the original statement contains fundamental inaccuracies regarding the actors involved and the primary focus of alliance building.

The corrected statement is:

Alliance building is a formal agreement between sovereign states that coordinates their military actions to deter or defend against traditional security threats.

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.

Part (b)

Traditional notions of security are overwhelmingly concerned with military threats and the protection of the state from external danger. Its key components include:

• Threat or use of military force: every state maintains armed forces and weapons for deterrence (discouraging an attack by threatening war) and for defence (limiting damage if attacked).
• Balance of power: a state keeps a careful watch on the military and economic strength of neighbours and builds alliances so that no single power becomes strong enough to threaten it.