SECURITY LEVELS IN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

Six levels of security actors So, how can we deal with the complex problem of security in the
new international system? In order to establish a general understanding of the analytical concept
of security we would like to introduce a simple model A useful and rewarding exercise is to
distinguish between six levels of security, each defined by the security actors that at the same
time are victims of the security-related threats at that level:

1. Security for the individual (individual security).

2. Security for the social group, the community, “nation,” organized national or ethnic entity
(societal security).

3. Security for the state or “nation,” in the US terminology (national security).

4. Security for the region, that is, a coherent security region, not necessarily one based on
proximity (regional security).

5. Security for the society of nations or what could be referred to as “international society,”
consisting of all, or most states in the world (international security).

6. Security for the globe, meaning “Spaceship Earth” or the planet (global security). How do
these different levels of security, defined according to political units functioning as threats, as
well as victims to threats, relate to each other? How to map the vital threats to the six levels of
security coming from the same six levels of security? The fundamental assertion is that the all-
over general threat deals with the simple existence of the political unit in question. As to the
specific vital threats to the six levels of units, the basic claims are the following. To the single
individual the vital threat seems to be that to physical and economic survival. It has to do with
coercion and violence in physical and economic terms. You cannot be a “political man” if you
are heavily victimized by these threats. To the national society the vital element is identity,
which is the basic constructive element of society. Without identity there is no society. To the
state, the vital threat is to sovereignty. Without sovereignty, a socio-political entity cannot be
recognized as a state. For the region, stability and coherence are the main factors. Again, there is
no regional organization without these vital elements. To the international society, a threat to the
system’s permanence, to the way that generally recognized norms and rules can exist in a
basically anarchic order, is the essential one. Finally, to the globe as a kind of security unit,
sustainability is considered to be the vital factor exposed to threats.

The individual as victim: threats to physical and economic survival To the single individual there
are vital threats coming from practically all security actors: from other individuals, from society,
from the state, from the region and from the globe. It is interesting to note that according to
statistics of criminal acts, life-and-death threats from person to person most often occur inside
families or close groups. The most dangerous place seems to be the home. However, vital threats
could also come from a societal, collective actor. Think, for instance, of a situation in former
Yugoslavia where a gun pointing at an individual will be fired if the answer to the question “Are
you Serb, Croat, or Bosnian?” is wrong. State-based vital threats are exemplified in the actions
that the secret police in a dictatorship direct towards innocent citizens, for example, the Gestapo-
style 5 a.m. arrest. Threats from regions can also, in specific cases, be of the vital kind. The
precondition here is that the region is able to act through an effective organization like the
European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or the Organization of
African Unity (OAU). Only in rather rare cases has international society posed a vital threat to
single individuals. Quite specific circumstances, such as an effective, global collective security
policy have to be in play. Collective security is a very rare phenomenon.

The last occasion of this was the Gulf War in 1990–1, where individual Iraqi citizens were
exposed to military attacks. Also, the international society will pose an indirect threat in the case
that it is severely weakened or is breaking down, and sheer anarchy is reigning. Lastly, the global
threat: In this case, the individual will be extremely exposed as victim. Just to mention a few
examples: natural catastrophes, epidemics, future possible threats from outer space, and severe
pollution. Society as the victim: threats to identity Society will not be a victim of threats coming
from the individual. Even in very extreme cases one can hardly imagine a terrorist representing
only him/herself or a small violent group, threatening the existence or the identity of a whole
society. This threat relationship is weak. A threat to identity from a competing society is,
however, probable, and may be seen as vital. An example is the competition and conflict in Italy
during unification in the nineteenth century over which of the many Italian “nations” should
dominate the new state. Likewise, for a national society, a threat from a state can be vital.
Examples are numerous: Turkey to the Kurds, Russia to the Chechens, and England in the past to
the Welsh or Scots.

The regional actor can sometimes be a highly relevant threat to a “nation’s” identity. One has
only to consider the possible threat of the EU to the identity of individual member states. The
same goes for the impact that NATO had during the cold war as it attempted to construct a
Weidentity superior to, and in some cases at the cost of, national identity. In a similar way
international society could act as the source of threats to identity. International society as
represented in the League of Nations, had, as a very important objective, the principle of “the
self-determination of peoples.” This principle resulted in a considerable increase in the number
of nation states in Europe, thus solving the identity problem for many nations that became states.
At the same time, howevermultinational, constructed identities were challenged. The principle of
selfdetermination had no high priority in the new formation of international society as it emerged
from the Second World War, that is, in the UN. Rather, the opposite became the norm:

The accidental splitting of nations (primarily Germany), the removal of huge populations, and
the recognition of borders that took no consideration of national affiliations. This constituted a
threat to societal identity. Also the international society in the new world order can threaten
national or ethnic society, identity through international, humanitarian intervention. As regards
global threats, societal identity is not explicitly a victim. There is only an indirect threat to
society. The state as victim: threats to sovereignty Assessing the state as a victim of vital threats,
which will primarily concern sovereignty, one can assert that the individual does not pose any
essential threat for the state, any more than for society. A society can constitute a certain threat,
especially where state identities are weak, if not absent, and national/societal identities are very
strong, as, for example, was the case for Eastern European states inside the Soviet Empire during
the cold war. Here the problem was that the communist regime, in possession of state
sovereignty, had very limited legitimacy. In this way the national society constituted a threat to
the state. On three occasions this situation led to violent conflict: in 1953 in the German
Democratic Republic (East Germany), in 1956 in Hungary, and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. The
threat relationship between state and state is a vital part of the anarchic international structure.
Again, a regional threat can be in play, as, for example, was the case for Serbia during NATO’s
military operation in Kosovo in 1999.

It can also be seen as a major threat where international society is an actor, as, for example, in
the few cases where the collective security system of the UN is at work. The precondition for this
sort of threat is that willing and able states should act on behalf of the international society in
conducting war to save a victim of war, a state attacked by an international lawbreaker (for
example, the Gulf War, with Iraq as the lawbreaker). As regards global threats, the situation is
close to that of the national society: The state as a state is not explicitly threatened by globally-
oriented events. The region as victim: threats to stability and coherence Insofar as the region, or
rather the regional organization, is a victim, threats will mainly relate to stability in the region
and the coherence of the regional organization. Individual and societal actors will play minor
roles. States, however, will be able to pose a threat to regional stability and coherence. This
involves, primarily, major and great powers, including superpowers, as, due to their influence on
the salient environment, they are to a large degree able to construct and deconstruct regions and
sub-regions, and in this way seriously affect the existence or non-existence of regional
organizations. Regions will be able to threaten the coherence of other regions, but not on the
scale of great power or superpower activities.

The international society can indirectly have a threatening impact on regions, primarily due to
weakening or the breakdown of the international society. Global threats will have an influence in
the last analysis.