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)
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