• Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:



The paper acknowledges that provision of security and observation of an ethical code of conduct are major requirements required to be observed by any country in the world. However, it refutes the fact that these requirements have a similar value. The paper insists on the fact that security and observation of a particular code of ethics are prioritised by most countries. It further reveals that in all cases security is highly prioritised compared to observation of this code of ethics. The paper spells on the importance of security in the modern society. It also tries to justify why these code of ethics is disregarded at the expense of guaranteeing global security.


It is now clear that security is the paramount responsibility for any country; due to the development of technology and increase in international conflict between nations the surety of security globally has been at stake. This has led to security leading on Baldwin hierarchical model of value. It is now considered as a prime value to the entire world as a whole and countries separately (Baldwin, 2003). This is instigated by the rise of terrorism and extremist groups which have claimed fair share of the death toll of innocent civilians globally. Various security agencies have come up with strategies to ensure that the security of their countries is not compromised. However, some of these strategies are not in line with ethical practise or jurisdiction powers to carry out these plans in order to ensure the security of their country and that of their citizens. This paper, therefore, tries to justify why security at all cost is an ethical justification for protection of the community.

Our current political and society’s systems have now resulted to the increasing need for more and more security. This shows that security has climbed to become a prime value and essential need for every citizen globally. The need for the safety has pervaded almost all spheres of life now especially in the recent decade when terrorist groups and extremist groups activities have been on the rise threatening global security. This has caused the creation of new security technology especially on surveillance; tracking device and identification which have been improved to fight the growing global security menace (Zeadally, Yu, Jeong & Liang, 2012). The government in various countries now have an even greater task to guarantee security to their citizens.

However; the International Centre for Ethics (ICE) stresses on observation of all ethical issue by these security agencies in their course of ensuring security. In line with this issue, most security agencies have been criticised for using excessive force in their course of preventing security. Most security organisations are known to use the traditional, “hard” approach in their course of countering insecurity («Weak links: fragile states, global threats, and international security», 2012). In the course of Countering Violent Extremist (CVE) these security agencies have been claimed to take up lives of multiple suspects who were thought to be a threat to global security. In this course, these security agencies have been criticised for using unethical strategies like torture, targeted deaths, using malicious software’s used in spying in their course of averting global security threats. With the improvement I technology these agencies have been criticised on their use of hacking into individuals personal accounts and using drones to conduct surveillance without the consent of these people. This is an infringement on an individual’s privacy which is also out rightly against the ethical issues laid down by the International Centre for Ethics (IZEW). However these security agencies try to justify their action by claiming that these actions are taken up as security measures to prevent from any security threats imposed on them. Since global security is highly prioritised and valued compared to observation of ethical code of conduct it has proven futile for the victims of these infringement of privacy to prevent these security agencies from doing so (Zeadally, Yu, Jeong & Liang, 2012).

This issue has stirred a lot of debate globally with the humanitarian agencies being vocal in criticising these security agencies for neglecting these ethical issues in their course of averting global security risks. There has been an outcry for these security agencies to back down on using extreme force while facing this global security risk. However, these agencies are reluctant on using lesser force in their course to avert global security risk considering how detrimental insecurity can be to a country and a world as a whole. Syria current situation is the best example to back up this analogy; the once stable and prosperous country has now been reduced to ruins with an economy that is already fallen (Pilling, 2013). This shows that security has in the recent decade been prioritised due to the detrimental effect it has caused in countries which have fallen victims to it.

In a the recent United Nation summit on global security, this issue was evidently ignored which raised the issue that no country is willing to risk its sovereignty at the global level and internal peace at the expense of using lesser force to counter their security risks. This back up the notion of security is an important value to any country as claimed by Wolfers. On a critical look at this issue, it can be argued that over the past few years’ security has raised to be the now more significant value which every country globally has prioritised (Wolfe, 1995).

On a bigger scale; the security risk is also seen as prerequisites of international conflict this means that it poses a great threat to the fostering global relation between countries. This explains why there is no country that can openly agree to reduce the force used in its course to fight these security risks with fear of it falling out with its other fellow countries which are also in a similar course (Oros & Tatsumi, 2010). Considering that most of these countries have united in building a formidable union to fight the security threats imposed against them lowering the excessive force by any member country in this union will seem like a betrayal move which might stain this particular countries relationship with the other member countries. It can, therefore, be claimed that no country is willing to reduce its excessive force used to fight security threats which is against the ethical conduct in fear of tainting its relationship with other countries. The efforts of the global humanitarian societies in pressurising for the reduction of the excessive force by these countries in their security risk averting course seem like a fight that is far from being won (Oros & Tatsumi, 2010). Considering that there is no country ready to comply with this ethical code of conduct, it seems like the excessive force used in fighting security risks by these countries is not going to be reduced any time soon.

However, the use of excessive force by these countries is also causing an international rift between countries globally which has further dented the unity and prosperous relationship between them. For instance, invasion of the United States in Iraq dented its relationship with other Arabic countries that was seen as a biased attack due to their difference in religion (Mittelman, 2011). This invasion was heavily popularised to the extent that it treated the earlier economic partnership between the European countries and those from the Arabic countries this was a blow to the global economy. However due to the extremely high value of security in most countries and the United Nations they were still adamant on reducing its extreme force imposed on the security risk on them.

On a close look using of excessive forces and preceding the ethical code of conduct by these countries can be justifiable considering how essential security is to a country. Security is considered to be the foundation in which a country is built on. Looking on how security has contributed to ruining various countries for instance the genocide in Rwanda and the Iraqi war which was instigated by terrorist activities and civil differences security is evident a fundamental part which contributes to the prosperity of any country (Hasnat, 2011). Therefore, this can justify the defiance of these countries in refusing to loosen their hold on using extreme force in their course of averting the security issue risks which threatens the sovereignty and peace of these countries. It is the requirement that every country to observe ethical issues in its course of fighting the security threats that it faces this also entwines with the fact that security is a subject that commands great value to any country. Therefore, as required a country should strike a balance on these matters which as evidently seen is not the case. Almost all countries value their security and tend to be reluctant in observing the ethical issues in their course of preventing these security threats against them (Madrueño-Aguilar, 2016).With the ethical code of conduct and security being both valuable issues for a county security seems to have a higher magnitude regarding the repercussion it might cause. Therefore, it is ultimately given greater attention while as the ethical issues are neglected.

It is essential that every country has the right level of security to ensure that it is running efficiently to meet its economic and societal goals. A threat of danger, theft and any other crime keeps a country’s citizens in constant fear and also chase away a country’s potential investment. Evidently countries in constant fight or those facing security risk have been categorised among the slow growing economies globally. This reveals the extent in which security risks has dented the country’s growth and success resulting to cropping up of other problems like unemployment (III, 2008). Insecurity is a problem that negatively impacts entire sector of a country where as the ethical code of conduct limitedly affects some sectors. For instance, insecurity affects a country’s economy, the education system and its administration while the ethical issue merely affects the country’s policy. This reveals the reason security seems to have a higher value compared to observing an ethical code of conduct. Therefore, insecurity problem is highly likely to be prioritised compared to the code of ethics problem.

Security is, therefore, a greater threat to accruing of various life values while observing the ethical code of conduct is not that essential. This is backed up by Wolfers definition of security as the absence of threat to acquired values in both an objective and subjective sense (Wolfe, 1995). On the other hand, the Maslow categorization of needs places security as the second most essential need after the psychological needs. This is therefore further justification of prioritisation of the security problem ahead of the observation of an ethical code of conduct. With the modern society being built on a strong foundation that is dependent on security for it to development and thrive; security then out rightly become the primary issue to be prioritised by any government (Haas, 2007). Any societal configuration whether a clan a state or the world as a whole need security for it thrive this explains the reason security gets the crucial prioritisation whereas the ethical code of conduct required to be observed by countries comes second in priority.

Baldwin claims that security is all about values; he goes further to argue that security is the probability posed where these values might not be acquired (Baldwin, 2003). Therefore, this can be interpreted that security is the threat of the acquisition of these values which are crucial for fostering a prosperous life for human beings. These values which human beings profoundly seek for include; stability, dependency and freedom from fear, anxiety and malicious acts. Security, therefore, threatens the attaining of these values which further puts a country’s chances of being successful and guarantees a better life for its citizens at stake (Detraz, 2011). These countries, therefore, tend to do every possible in their power in order to ensure that the security of their countries is not compromised. In its course of preventing these security threats, these nations end up forgoing their ethical requirement of observing an ethical code of conduct in their fight against these security threats (Booth, 2007). The most significant ethical issues forgone by these countries in their struggle against these security threats include; torturing of suspect and target killings regardless of these individuals human rights (Bolduc, 2016).

It is evident in the paper that security in the modern society is an issue that has been highly valued. This can be blamed on the rise of security threats in the wake of the current global terrorism problem and the emergence of extremist groups. Security has therefore surpassed the observation of an ethical code of conduct as a country’s priorities. Most countries, therefore, are more willing to go against their required code of ethics which they are supposed to observe in an effort not to compromise the security of their nations. Despite the formation of the International Humanitarian Laws which were formed with the objective of limiting the conduct of war; these laws seem to have very minimal impact I ensuring the ethical code of conduct is observed in the course of averting global security threats. The cases of countries disregarding their ethical duties in their course of fighting security threats is still major problem even after 25 years since the formation of these laws. They seem limited in preventing these countries from disregarding their ethical duties since security seems to be an issue with a much bigger magnitude compared to these ethical issues.


Baldwin, G. (2003). Iraq—managing the peace. Conflict, Security & Development, 3(3), 431-436.

Bolduc, N. (2016). Global Insecurity: How Risk Theory Gave Rise to Global Police Militarization. Indiana Journal Of Global Legal Studies, 23(1), 267.

Booth, K. (2007). Theory of world security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Detraz, N. (2011). Threats or Vulnerabilities? Assessing the Link between Climate Change and Security. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 104-120.

Haas, M. (2007). Global Aging: Opportunities and Threats to American Security. Public Policy & Aging Report, 17(4), 7-11.

Hasnat, S. (2011). Global security watch—Pakistan. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger.

III, J. (2008). Redefining Global Security in the Face of Threats on the Economic Front. World Economy, 9(3), 311-312.

Madrueño-Aguilar, R. (2016). Human Security and the New Global Threats: Discourse, Taxonomy and Implications. Glob Policy, n/a-n/a.

Mittelman, J. (2011). What drives global security and insecurity?. Global Change, Peace & Security, 23(2), 113-116.

Oros, A., & Tatsumi, Y. (2010). Global security watch—Japan. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger.

Pilling, R. (2013). Global threats, cyber-security nightmares and how to protect against them. Computer Fraud & Security, 2013(9), 14-18.

Sperotto, F. (2008). Targeted Killings in Response to Security Threats: Warfare and Humanitarian Issues. Global Jurist, 8(3).

Weak links: fragile states, global threats, and international security. (2012). Choice Reviews Online, 49(06), 49-3516-49-3516.

Wolfe, H. (1995). The Internet threat. Network Security, 1995(1), 7-8.

Zeadally, S., Yu, B., Jeong, D., & Liang, L. (2012). Detecting Insider Threats: Solutions and Trends. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 21(4), 183-192.