State-centric theories of international security belong to the past, at

least to the extent that they do not speak to the main security
problems of our current era.
State centrism in international security studies is perhaps the result of the idea
that the state is the primary actor in international relations. Essentially,
international relations are indeed concerned with the power relations between
states. Nevertheless, the state is made up of communities and individuals that are
increasingly finding themselves in the limelight of security threats. Traditional
state-centric theories have a tendency to be inadequate as they are not able to
explain and propose solutions to new categories of threats such as migration and
transnational crime. It would be worthwhile to reconsider these theories in the
post-Cold War - and post 9/11- as the political landscape has evolved drastically.
While the importance of the state cannot be questioned, its prime spot as the focus
of security theories is debatable. The field of security studies has over the past two
decades seen a diversification in literature with the introduction of human security
discourse as well as environmental and economic security dimensions to the
traditional theories. The human security theory tends to dismiss the role of states
as 'referent objects' of security and place individuals at the forefront. Yet, has the
state become completely obsolete in the context of International Security?
The answer is a resounding no. We cannot simply deny that International security
and the state still overlap at various levels. The state remains one of the prime
agencies in international relations and is thus a referent object when it comes to
security threats; albeit, not the only one. While state centric theories tend to focus
on the state as one entity as opposed to a collection of many, they are still
relevant, as threats to the state- as an entity- still exist.
The issue with state-centric theories, however, is that they obliterate the existence
of individuals- millions of individuals- facing security threats that are often times,
completely disregarded at the state level. Hunger, poverty, persecution, refugee
and immigrant rights are security issues that are not adequately addressed by
traditional state-centric theories. The state should not only be the referent object of
state-directed security threats but also threats to its constituent individuals,
environment, economy and refugees. Contemporary security concerns are
seemingly more centred towards the individual; at first glance, one could easily use
this premise to dismiss state-centric theories as belonging to a past era. However,
the relationship between the state, individuals and security is far more complex.
With transnational crime and terrorism for instance, one cannot disregard the role
of the state and consider only individuals or non-state groups. The formation of
transnational criminal groups is a security concern that is to be addressed at the
state and sub-state level. Security threats emanate from within and beyond the
state. The state is threatened but also individuals who become collaterals of those
threats. The overlap between those security concerns would lead us to believe that
state centric theories are not irrelevant, perhaps just incomplete to explain
contemporary situations.
The human security nexus and the state-centric theories are interestingly not
mutually exclusive. This means that a fair compromise on which theoretical
approach or which mix of approaches is most appropriate for a given situation in
the contemporary political landscape is not impossible to find. De facto, the
international and internal political arenas have evolved into an era in which multiple
perspectives are required to understand and analyse events and possible outcomes.
From the individual to the state and its environment and financial system, security
issues increasingly overlap so that we need to see theories from a new standpoint
and adapt them to our contemporary concerns. State-centric theories are not to be
completely dismissed into the realm of the past, in my opinion; they just need to be
tailor-fitted to the demands of the present security issues.