Security Studies – Approaches to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Security Studies – Approaches to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
June 5, 2023
The COVID-19 pandemic, identified first in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, has proven to be one of the most significant global challenges in recent history. According to the World Health Organization (2023), as of “April 30, 2023, over 765 million confirmed cases and over 6.9 million deaths have been reported globally”. Amid the crisis, various approaches to security have come to the fore, shaping responses to the pandemic at both the national and international levels. In line with this, an analysis of the responses of various nation-states would show that three major theoretical frameworks in security studies – traditional or state-centric security, human security, and critical security studies – offer different perspectives on how security is conceptualized and pursued. Each of these approaches has found resonance in different aspects of the global response to COVID-19, reflecting the complexity and multifaceted nature of the pandemic. Nonetheless, this paper will explore these security paradigms in-depth and argue that a multifaceted approach, a combination of these approaches, best explains the global response to COVID-19.
Overview of Security Approaches
Traditional or State-Centric Security
Traditional or state-centric security, rooted in realism and neorealism, views the state as the primary referent of security and centers on protecting national interests, territorial integrity, and political sovereignty (Singh & Nunes, 2016). The emphasis is on military and diplomatic measures, often seen as the primary tools for achieving and maintaining security. Nevertheless, in line with Covid-19 and other health crises, state-centric security focuses on protecting the state from the destabilizing impacts of disease, such as economic decline or social unrest. It concerns itself primarily with how health crises affect state power and the ability of the state to fulfill its essential functions (Elbe, 2009).
Human Security
Human security, in contrast, is an approach that broadens the concept of security beyond the state to focus on the security of individuals and communities (Newman, 2010). It encompasses many threats, including disease, and emphasizes the importance of development, public health systems, and social protections in enhancing security.
Accordingly, the human security approach emphasizes the direct impact of disease on human well-being and survival, focusing on vulnerable and marginalized populations. It often advocates for interventions that address underlying social and economic vulnerabilities in addition to treating the disease itself (Newman, 2010).
Critical Security Studies
Finally, critical security studies challenge traditional notions of security by interrogating the underlying power structures and discourses that define who or what is to be secured (Browning & McDonald, 2013). They scrutinize the societal, political, and economic structures that influence the distribution of security and insecurity.
According to Peoples and Vaughan-Williams (2010), in the context of health crises, critical security studies might examine the politics of how diseases are securitized, the power disparities at play in global health governance, or how health crises can exacerbate existing.
Nonetheless, despite the inherent differences in these paradigms, the COVID-19 pandemic represents a critical juncture that has tested these three security approaches, revealing their strengths and limitations. The subsequent sections will explore these in detail.
Application of Security Approaches to COVID-19
Traditional or State-Centric Security and COVID-19
The global reaction to COVID-19 was predominantly governed by the traditional or state-centric security paradigm, with sovereignty and protection of national interests taking precedence. The influence of this approach was conspicuous in the pandemic management strategies implemented by different countries, each reflecting their unique interpretation of state power.
Notably, the advent of COVID-19 presented a multi-dimensional security issue, encompassing human security, economic security, and international security, significantly straining relations with countries like China. The virus did not just challenge human health but also unsettled global economies and exacerbated geopolitical tensions, underscoring the complexity of the crisis.
For example, initial responses in countries like China and Italy illustrated the strong exercise of state power, implementing rigorous measures such as lockdowns, border controls, and mandatory mask-wearing. In China, the state mobilized quickly to conduct extensive testing, enforce strict quarantine measures, and even construct hospitals in record time, demonstrating state capacity in crisis management (Rothstein et al., 2021). Similarly, Italy, despite having one of the oldest populations globally, controlled virus spread relatively well through early nationwide lockdowns (Caduff, 2020).
The state's influence extended beyond mandates to leveraging military resources for pandemic management. France and the UK provide apt examples of this approach. France used its military to establish field hospitals in areas most affected by the virus, such as the Grand Est region, highlighting the effective utilization of state resources (Rothstein et al., 2021). Meanwhile, the UK's armed forces played significant roles in mass testing and vaccine rollout, underscoring the versatility of state apparatuses in crisis response.
However, the state-centric approach revealed areas for improvement, particularly in promoting international cooperation. The onset of 'vaccine nationalism,' characterized by countries prioritizing vaccine access for their citizens, demonstrated this approach's impediments to global collaboration and equitable distribution of health resources (Daems & Maes, 2022).
Furthermore, this approach was put to the test in terms of the tension between security and individual freedoms. Stringent state-imposed measures aimed at controlling the virus led to significant encroachments on personal liberties, such as the freedom of movement and assembly, underscoring the delicate balance between public health security and personal freedoms.
Additionally, the pandemic has thrown light on the intersections of public and private security and existing healthcare inequalities. High-income countries like the US and UK were able to secure more vaccine doses than needed, disadvantaging lower-income countries and thus exacerbating global health disparities (Yarlagadda et al., 2022). This situation triggered interventions from international health organizations like the WHO. However, the organization faced both praises for its instrumental role and criticism for its perceived inadequacies, again highlighting the challenges of state-centric security in managing global health crises.
Human Security and COVID-19
The human security approach contrasts the traditional state-centric view by emphasizing the individual's well-being rather than focusing solely on national sovereignty and state interests. This perspective was instrumental in shaping the global response to COVID-19, particularly in countries that prioritized the health and welfare of their citizens amid formidable economic and political challenges.
Human security, defined by freedom from fear and want, integrates multiple facets, including economic, health, and personal security. The COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant challenge to human security, not only because of its direct health impact but also due to its profound economic consequences and its potential to disrupt social order and contribute to conflict.
One example of this is New Zealand, under the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, which provided a compelling exemplar of the human security approach. The country adopted a science-led, people-centric strategy that prioritized health above other considerations. Its 'elimination' strategy, featuring early, rigorous lockdowns, comprehensive testing, and contact tracing, effectively curtailed the virus's spread, highlighting the primacy of human well-being over economic interests (Baker et al., 2020).
However, the global response also illuminated the inherent limitations of this approach. Predominantly, the capacity of countries to secure human well-being varied dramatically, particularly for low- and middle-income nations with resource-constrained health systems. Regions like sub-Saharan Africa, already grappling with multiple health crises, faced monumental challenges due to the additional burden of COVID-19 (Gebremeskel et al., 2021).
This situation underscored the crucial role of international health organizations like the WHO in strengthening global health governance and fostering cooperation. Despite facing criticism for handling the pandemic, the WHO played a vital role in orchestrating the global response. It launched the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, helping countries combat the pandemic, especially those with weaker health systems.
Finally, the pandemic also shed light on the relationship between freedom and security, with many countries grappling with striking a balance between ensuring public safety and preserving personal liberties. Further, it brought into focus the relationship between public and private security and revealed stark disparities in vaccine availability and uptake, amplifying existing health inequalities.
Critical Security Studies and COVID-19
In contrast to the state-centric security and human security approach, Critical Security Studies (CSS) provide a comprehensive lens through which we can understand the global response to COVID-19. It illuminates how societal, political, and economic structures shape health security policies and outcomes. Viewing the pandemic as a security issue intertwined with broader systems un...