In light of these new developments, there is a need to revisit the traditional concepts of security. One should ask themselves whether it is plausible to include other parameters like demography, environment and resources. (Daniel, 1998)
This means that the concept of international relations must be redefined; this is because there may be other underlying assumptions that have governed it. There are common strains and factors that have broken national borders. It must also be remembered that communication and information has undergone rapid changes. Besides, finances and capital are flowing all around the world. The clear dividing line that separated foreign and domestic policy is now distorted. This has now caused states to deal with problems in international forums rather than domestically. (Paul, 2000)
Security perceptions may either be narrow or wide. Narrow concepts focus on power as the main agenda while wide concepts focus on cooperation. It must be remembered that human rights and international law are crucial determinants in this analysis.
There are a number of occurrences that have sparked this debate. The first was the unification of Europe and Germany in the year 1989. Shortly after, there was the September eleventh attack in the year 2001 that posed new challenges to the American government. The security concept is now widening from national security to human or individual security. It has also expanded to include other factors like; actors, food, energy, health and other sectors. (Mathews, 1993)
Arguments for the state as a reference object
Other concepts are vague
In opposition to the view that national security is of prime importance, other bodies like the United Nations Commission of Human Security have endorsed and proposed the idea of human security. However, traditionalists argue that this concept is too wide. It does not provide a clear outline of cause and effect like national security does. In addition, these conservatives further claim that the concept of global security is a mere complication of an already difficult subject to handle. They believe that it is a secondary matter and should not be included in security discussions.
The state is a very significant entity
Arguments have been put forward that considering other concepts in security diverts attention away from matters of national concern. Yet, the state is a very crucial part of our lives. It determines who we can and cannot see where we can and cannot do business. It is therefore imperative to ensure that these issues are safeguarded
Protecting countries from foreign investors
Some countries like the United States allow the purchase of military or government companies by foreign investors in line with modern concepts of security. This could be perceived as a progressive step that causes capital development and increases in technology for the country. But it allows foreign investors access to classified information concerning the country's military efforts. This is especially so for those countries that have not been fully scrutinised to find out whether they are capable of handling too much access. This could bring about a problem for selfish companies. The foreign investors could try exploiting