The definition of “security” in the context of conflict resolution depends on one’s point of view. According to Gary Swiercz, Of the many other levels at which security can be analysed, individual, group, regional, national, and global are the most relevant here. Our task is then relatively straightforward; we consider how safety at these various levels is defined. What emerges is a structure on which security commitments are built and enforced. Security can be defined at the simplest level as “the quality or state of being secure,” “freedom from danger,” or “freedom from fear or anxiety.”
In Group Security, we need to first identify the scope of the “region.” to address the regional defense. Because in this hierarchy we have positioned the regional below the national level, we are talking about a coverage location within a nation that may be several regions, towns, or states. We would also talk of their protection at the community level if there were such social, political, or ethnic groups that ruled a country as told by Gary Swiercz.
At the regional level, the simplest definition of defense could be fiscal, suggesting defense of regional interests. Perhaps a regional relationship with, or possession of, a valuable property might give rise to desires for protection, and the region will be responsible for maintaining that security. Labor or labor unions play this role, for instance. Gary Swiercz mentioned that maintaining a certain quality of life may be another notion of protection at this stage. In this sphere, regional group members may choose to shield themselves from mass immigration, which could happen because of the region’s coveted wealth. By lobbying against this immigration, the area could aim to ensure its stability.
Security risks are sometimes cited here, typically related to concerns of decreased living conditions. On a more subtle level, under the guise of regional security, religious, political, or ethnic groups may shrewdly promote their interests and lift their group security to a regional priority level.
Individual Security is most commonly understood as protection on the human level. Whether physical or psychological, this protection involves freedom from injury. Threats to the protection of a person will generate the above-described fear or anxiety. The Declaration Of Human Rights of the United Nations specifies that all citizens are entitled to “security of person.” This declaration strengthens the principle of freedom from physical and psychological injury. Yet, what precautions will be taken to protect a person from harm? Judicial mechanisms that shield people from threats to their security are the most common types of defense.
They include laws against homicide, sex crimes, physical injury, robbery, and psychological harm, such as coercion, but are not confined to them. The government takes responsibility for creating and administering these legal regulations. Also, protection can be compared to one’s ability to fulfil the basic physical needs of a job, such as a residence, food, and sociology-economic needs. Therefore, the notion of individual protection may be compared to the understanding of her or his quality of life by an individual. In this way, the person will associate protection with a high standard of living.
A comparatively recent term is a global defense, and it conjures up visions of institutions such as the United Nations. Global stability, however, can be compromised by national security threats; if one country is intimidated by another because representatives of the world disagree, global security cannot exist same is the opinion of Gary Swiercz.
The derogatory opinion by one country of another’s government ideology often threatens global stability. If nation A concludes that the governing methods of nation B are erroneous, nation A will not apply to a global authority that requires the methods of nation B to proceed. Thus, global security is a poor term, since it suggests that a supranational body must yield its decision to countries in matters of conflict. This is a far-fetched objective, which shortly is impossible to be realized. When nations rapidly coveted commodities such as soil, water, and energy, global security has no hope of emerging as a permanent term in foreign affairs.
The idea of protection, at all stages. It is connected to fundamental principles of human psychology. People will respond if attacked and take appropriate defense steps. At the personal level. By exercising vigilance in his or her everyday life such as Gary Swiercz, one can often ward off risks. Additional security precautions can be arranged by him or her, such as alarm devices, guns, or even moving residences. At the group or regional level, the same form of reaction can occur. More structured frameworks of defense and security arrangements occur at the national and global levels. To respond to overt attacks, nations could trigger defensive systems. This will endanger the other hand, thus reducing protection, rather than increasing.