SECURITY FOUNDATION 1 Essay Example
Ethical Justification of Security in Protection of Communities
In the past few decades or so, the aspect of security has been garnered intensive momentum within many nations, institutions as well social actors in search of current and workable ways of suppressing the arising of many non-military threats to peace. In the modern world, the aspect of human security is faced with intensive level of threats that usually emanates from all situations that give rise to such atrocities as civil war, human rights violation and global epidemics amongst others. In this regards, the paper presents a concrete argument on ethical justification of using security as a tool to ensure the immediate protection of communities across the globe. The firsts section of the paper represents the introduction, which is immediately followed by the body that puts up an argument for the need of security in protection of communities and the very last section provides a conclusion of the entire research argument.
Human security is the processess concerned with the overall protection of the fundamental aspects of all human lives from both critical to pervasive environments, economies, individual and political based threats (Bellamy, 2002). Intensive research indicates that security is a responsibility of the state, and other non-governmental organisations. A community that exists in the absence of security is said to be conducting activities in the state of dissolution where there are no subjection to laws as well as coercive power, which is necessary in preventing them from actions related to revenge (Farer, 2003). In fact, without any form of security, human life is deemed to be solitary and poor in nature. This paper argues that provision of security is in fact an ethical justification to protect the communities and that its immediate implementation in all societies is paramount.
Ethical Justification of Security in Community Protection
It is important to understand that both the global and local communities operate on traded values that ensure people conduct their daily activities in peace and stability. The notion of ensuring that all citizens, within a country operate, on a steady and stable environment calls for the state to integrate all elements of security in order achieve productivity and functionality at all times (Farer, 2003). In fact, it is argued that the element of security reflects the overall nature of any society since people depend on it for their daily living. Humans have numerous basic needs and amongst them is the safety need, which assures them of stability, dependency as well as provides them with the freedom from fear, anxiety and conflicts whenever possible.
Gasper (2005) posits that the fundamental role of the state is to provide security, at all costs, to its immediate citizens, whether militarily or even without the use of military in order to ensure that they enjoy the fundamental factors that emanate from well-being and stability. It is therefore the ethical responsibility of the nation state to provide security at all costs in order to ensure that they meet their objectives. It is noted that the nation state is concerned with ensuring that there is a great deal of political stability and economic prosperity. Citizens contribute to these factors given that they provide a significant factor of production; human capital, in the course of ensuring the economic prosperity of a nation (Oman, 2006). Both economic prosperity and political stabilities cannot be achieved in the case that there is insecurity. This can be reflected in the many Arab nations, which lack security and as a result of this, there has been intensive tribal and terrorism-based violence acts that has suppressed the ability of the nation to move forward in regards to reliable and workable political systems (Garrigues, 2007). In Syria, for instance, the emergence of terrorism-related groups like the ISIS have all been associated with the inability and inefficiency of the dethroned government structures to protect the entire community at all costs. In regards to the ethical responsibility to protect communities, African nation opted to support the political push of an inefficient establishment of the AU doctrine formulated in 2002 as well as the immediate development of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union in 2004 (Garrigues, 2007). It is deemed necessary and significant that these African members’ countries adopt the doctrine of non-interference in order to guarantee their citizens of the imminent security. The ability to carry out independent decision making and, also apply the rule of law in relation to the underlying legit government structures calls for intensive levels of security processess and structures to oversee protection of communities through monitoring and controlling some of their every moves. National and international governments ensure to incorporate the doctrines set out by influencing non-governmental organisations as a way of delegating their duties. In fact, with the efficient planning and, also the provision of mandate related to conditions considered useful in the protection of civilians has since improved over time due to integration of UN Human Rights Commission whose mandate rests with ensuring that human beings regardless of the ethnicity or race enjoy their right to safety (Frost, 2001). In regards to UN, the intensive peace operations manifested in such nations as Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Ivory Coast ascertained on the ethical responsibility to authorise the protection of these civilians through reliable provision of reliable humanitarian aid as well as propelling successful initiatives in relocating internally displaced persons (Garrigues, 2007).
It is ethically right for nation states to embrace any form of security functionality to protect the already acquired values of its citizens from possible external interferences. Governments are called upon to come up with effective counter-terrorism policies meant to diminish the impacts of malicious harm to people and property (Frost, 2001). It is crucial to note that the activities related to terrorism do not necessarily involve violent attacks on only people and property but rather extends to such other impacts as distortions of communication platforms, damaged asset base as well as tarnished public image that can result to both short and long-term destructions to the overall economic activities of a community (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). For instance, the most viable form of threats that will likely hit Australia rests with international-based terrorism that focuses on mounting high degree of attacks that will integrate mass level of casualties with an enormous distortion to such fundamental economy sectors as energy, transport and the entire communications framework. This is a threat that is considered to be distinct in both scale and intent to any that the nation has ever been exposed before.
It is arguably right to note that provision of security features meant to oversee activities related to such environmental harm as pollution, illegal fishing, and the depletion of the entire ozone layer is ethically right for protection of future survival capabilities of a given community. Welfare economics posits that the undeveloped areas of the globe will likely enjoy greater benefits from intensive traditional deployment like dependency on agriculture both animal and crop farming as well as industrialisation process, which demonstrates the underlying complexities within the modern environmentalism (Sen, 1993). Conventional economic analysis indicates that development signifies efficient allocation and distribution of resources, even when external pollution costs have been covered. Such community developments are only perceived in communities for which underlying legal frameworks not only promotes but also supports aspects related to security of existing resources.
Sen (1997) argues that the conceptualisation of poverty as a given notable element fails to indicate a series of stochaic events that could happen in certain duration of human life existence. In essence, it should be distinguished that for all humanity, the fundamental aspect of life is deemed uncertain in nature such that there are imminent accidents, ill-health as well as natural disasters. These are unfortunate events of brutish nature that each and every living human being, as a finite and vulnerable being, is exposed to in all manners of ways. Such external distortions as economic and environmental-based shifts as well as uncertainties like poor health can directly impact on a person’s, group or even entire population in a non-predictable manner and might result to intensive levels of loses of livelihood as well as lead to extreme poverty (Sen, 1997). From an economic perspective, reliable and modern market economies cannot operate effectively and efficiently in the case where people lack enough capabilities to insure their property assets and, also protect their investments and livelihood. On the other hand, from an ethical and moral perspective, a person’s life chances should at no point in time ever determined by ethical arbitrary elements as floods and accidents due to negligence or lack of care on the part of the institution that has been mandated to oversee proper security.
In response towards shared uncertainties and mutual threats, it is noted that member countries within the Global North have all embraced distinct aspects of social protection models that is able to develop purposeful safety-nets around their respective communities and in turn, ensure to promote the overall social, political and economic frameworks already in place (Gostin, 2003). Societal protection, which greatly involves both contributory and non-contributory aspects, within these communities is justified on the foundation of both solidarity and reciprocity. Solidarity, in this sense, reflects the recognition and appreciation of shared human risks as well as vulnerabilities while it ascertains on the need to foster equal moral worth of all people regardless of their positions (Thakur, 2006). Reciprocity defines the ways for which systems of societal cooperation and integration can all work together to ensure all benefits and burdens of such incorporation can be shared amongst all community members while still upholding the element of accountability (Thakur, 2006).
According to Murphy and Walsh (2014), poorest countries that do not have enough security machinery in place suffer a great deal of barriers in the course of applying community-based protection due to lack of resources, social cohesion, and weak political legitimacy systems as well as will. For instance, it is noted that in a large number of countries within the Sub-Saharan Africa economies are primarily informal such that the state’s frameworks needed for assuring easier acquisition of values useful in such economical activities as trade and employment supervision are deemed weak while the trust in these state authority is indeed insignificant to warrant favourable outcomes. Due to this, there exists a high degree of economic, social and political barricades needed for establishing a formal and sustainable state-controlled level of protection systems.
Tarlock (1992) ascertains that from a moral and ethical perspective, community-based protection instruments are a perfect manifestation of a duty to mutual aid by the state security agencies. There are situations citizens’ lives that require assistance not only from others but also accumulatively from the state whenever there is a compromise on their safety needs. Following this line of argument, it is established that there will always be a duty to associate intrinsic or rather core values to mutual aid duty. Of particular interest, it is ethical justified for the establishment of state security institutions that can vehemently provide enough protection. All communities are to a greater or lesser extent, integrated within security systems and practices for purposes of mutual cooperation and benefits. Thus, the distribution of these forms of benefits reflects the rationale behind justice and, a proper section for moral and ethical evaluation and analysis process through a justice-focused platform. Egalitarians argue that justice is indeed a perfect element meant to counter any worst effects of bad luck through mitigation and subjection to moral requirements needed to ensure that there is institutional arrangement to oversee such cases with a secured environment (Thakur, 2006).
In sum, the discussion has clearly argued that security is ethically justified for protection of communities. To reduce the effects of environmental degradation such as pollutions and illegal fishing, the paper has proposed that security functions should be delivered by established state-based security institutions. It has been argued that poorest countries that do not have enough security machinery in place suffer a great deal of barriers in the course of applying community-based protection due to lack of resources, social cohesion, and weak political legitimacy systems as well as will. Consequently, it has been established that provision of security features meant to oversee activities related to such environmental harm as pollution, illegal fishing, and the depletion of the entire ozone layer is ethically right for protection of future survival capabilities of a given community.
Bellamy, A. J. (2002). Pragmatic solidarism and the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 473-497.
Devereux, S. & Sabates-Wheeler, R (2004). “Transformative Social Protection”, IDS Bulletin, 38, 1-7.
Farer, T. J. (2003). The ethics of intervention in self-determination struggles. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(2), 382-406.
Frost, M. (2001). The ethics of humanitarian intervention: protecting civilians to make democratic citizenship possible. Ethics and foreign policy, 33-54.
Garrigues, J. (2007). The responsibility to protect: from an ethical principle to an effective policy,
FRIDE, Retrieved on March 21, 2016 from http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/responsibilidad.proteger.pdf
Gasper, D. (2005). Securing humanity: Situating ‘human security’ as concept and discourse. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 221-245.
Gostin, L. O. (2003). When terrorism threatens health: how far are limitations on human rights justified? JL Med. & Ethics, 31, 524.
Murphy, S & Walsh, P, P. (2014). Social Protection beyond the Bottom Billion, IZA DP No. 8376, 1-27. Retrieved on March 21, 2016 from http://ftp.iza.org/dp8376.pdf
Omand GCB, S. D. (2006). Ethical guidelines in using secret intelligence for public security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4), 613-628
Sen, A., (1993). “Markets and Freedoms: Achievements and Limitations of the Market Mechanism in Promoting Individual Freedom”, Oxford Economic Papers, 45(4), 519-541.
Sen, A., (1997). “Inequality, Unemployment, and Contemporary Europe” International Labour Review, 136(2), 155-171.
Tarlock, A. D. (1992). Environmental Protection: The Potential Misfit between Equity and Efficiency. U. Colo. L. Rev., 63, 871.
Thakur, R. (2006). The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect. Cambridge University Press.
More Important Things