INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 205
Issues in International Security
Dr. Ambrues Monboe Nebo Sr. (Doctor of Sociology)
Ph.D. Student -Security Studies with an emphasis on International Security, Hill-City University-Benin Republic
Department of Political Science, Sociology Anthropology & Criminology -University of Liberia, Department of Criminal
Justice & Forensic Program & Sociology Department- African Methodist Episcopal University, Liberia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2024.130825
Received: 24 August 2024; Accepted: 16 September 2024; Published: 24 September 2024
Abstract: As a coursework requirement, this paper discusses issues in international security. It employs desk research, precisely
external desk research as one of the qualitative methods to dissect the topic.
Even though this paper did not exhaust all the thematic areas expected for issues in international security. However, it brings new
knowledge that contributes to the discipline of security studies. It argues that the threats associated with international security are
far different from the issues in international security. It further argues that the issues are a multiplicity of factors impeding or
frustrating the fight against the threats posed to international security.
Conclusively, the paper closed on the identification of the issues to be the main causes of the threats. Therefore, the paper calls
upon the actors in the theater of international security to take serious cognizance of the issues obstructing the prevention,
protection, alleviation, or mitigation of the threats in international security.
Key Words: International Security, Issues, threats,
I. Introduction
Since its inception following the Cold War, the term “international security” continues to occupy critical space in academic
settings, and global peace forums at international gatherings such as the United Nations, European Union, African Union, Arab
League, Arab and Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) groups, etc. This is because issues in international security have
become great concerns characterizing the world we live in, and as such these issues despite their threats to humanity remained
debatable in the international system. The most recent contemporary example that now occupies critical space in the international
system is the ongoing Israel retaliatory response to Hamas's unprecedented attack that killed 250 Israelis on 7
th
October 2023
(Aljazeera News, 2023). The UN Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023) on Gaza in which
13 voted in favor, and the US and Russia abstained (UN, 2023) is enough to explain the dynamics the debates have taken in the
international system surrounding Israel's retaliatory response to the Hamas attack. The mixed reactions or responses that greeted
the resolution are some pieces of evidence to support the dynamics the debates have taken. For example, through its Ambassador
and Deputy Permanent Representative, Israel took an exception and argued that hostages must be at the top of the Council’s
agenda (UN, 2023). The Permanent Observer of the Observer State of Palestine viewed the resolution as belated. He argued that
the resolution had been adopted after 20,000 Palestinians have been killed, almost half of them children and 60,000 wounded, and
two million Palestinians have been forcefully displaced coupled with a humanitarian crisis (UN, 2023), The UAE Ambassador
welcomed the adoption of the resolution unblocks lifesaving aid (UN, 2023), The Russian Ambassador termed the resolution as a
tragic moment for the Security Council. Regrettably, he argued that the Security Council did not find the courage to support at
least the minimum call for an end to the violence in Gaza, and it instead signed up for a “license to kill” Palestinian civilians (UN,
2023). China's Deputy Permanent Representative welcomed the adoption even though the adjustments did not meet China’s
expectations (UN, 2023). The Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom supported the resolution
because it would streamline aid checks so that humanitarian response can be massively scaled up (UN, 2023). The US
Ambassador described the resolution as “a glimmer of hope amongst a sea of unimaginable suffering” (UN, 2023).
Arguably, the above examples regarding the dynamics the debates have taken reflect the issues at stake regarding international
security. Against this backdrop, this paper or assignment although not about the Israel-Gaza Crisis, the Russia-Ukraine war, and
perhaps other conflicts driven by national security interests seeks to explore issues in international security from a general
perspective through five segments or parts. The first segment of the paper provides a general overview of international security as
a concept. It takes into consideration the definition, its importance, and the dichotomy between international security and global
security. The second segment examines relevant theories associated with issues in international security followed by relevant key
actors in the theater of international security.
The third segment identifies major threats associated with international security. This is premised on the fact that it seems
impractical to discuss issues in international security without regard for major security threats. The fourth segment elaborates on
the issues in international security. It does so by providing a conceptual clarification that displays an implied or inherent
dichotomy from threats associated with international security. In other words, it differentiates the issues in international security
from threats to international security. Finally, the last but not the least segment concludes the paper.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 206
Mindful of what could be observed as a digression from the topic under discussion, let it be cleared that the ongoing wars
between Israel and Gaza, and Russia and Ukraine, and perhaps other examples are mentioned in passing to support or buttress
critical arguments flagged by this paper.
II. Methodology and Material
Associated with qualitative methods, this paper adopts desk research, precisely external desk research. Somehow like content
analysis, external desk research allows the researcher to review and analyze secondary materials such as public libraries,
websites, reports, surveys, journals, newspapers, magazines, books, podcasts, videos, and other sources that exist outside the
purview of the researcher (Owa, 2023). The researcher's primary objective for selecting this method is to gather data or
information related to a specific topic under study. More importantly, it helps the researcher gain insights and understanding of a
particular topic or research question (Owa, 2023). Of course, this paper is about a particular topic on issues in international
security not a research question issues in international security. The secondary materials reviewed were sourced from the internet
through the Google search engine and Google Scholar search engine.
III. Contribution to Knowledge
This paper contributes to knowledge in a few ways that could certify academic benefits. First, it provides an enlightenment that
may not have been known to some audience coming across this paper. Secondly, because it explores the subject matter, especially
the issues from different dimensions or perspectives, it could be used as a research tool in academic settings. Finally, it adds to the
contribution of the academic discipline of International Relations that encapsulates international security as one of its sub-fields.
General Overview of International Security
Before diving into the crux of issues in international security, a clarification of the concept of international security matters a lot.
On the grounds that there is no consensus on the definition of the concept of security because of its subjective posture or nature, it
makes sense to think of international security in a similar context. This is simply because of the attachment of security to
international thus calling it “International Security”. Nevertheless, few attempts have been made to clarify the concept. In the
words of (Aorere, n.d.), international security is the action taken to prevent and deal with conflicts and protect people and their
way of life. The action may involve military action, peacekeeping, capacity building, and diplomatic agreements such as treaties
and conventions. According to the Universidad Francisco de Vitoria’s website (2023), the concept of international security refers
to the measures taken by countries to ensure the safety and protection of their citizens, borders, and interests in the international
arena. It primarily deals with the security concerns of individual states and their interactions with one another. It focuses on
traditional military threats, such as territorial disputes, arms proliferation, and interstate conflicts.
In the view of Stockholm University (n.d.), international security focuses on historical, social, and political dynamics around
issues related to war, conflict, and the pursuit of peace and stability.
Also known as strategic studies, international security established field within the International Relations discipline, focuses on
the role and functions of military forces in international politics (B0145, 2022).
The above definitions, which imply realism that will subsequently be discussed as one of the key theories, emphasize states'
inclination to protect their interests in the international system. States' interests in the international system are germane and
critical to their national security. This claim provided a normative justification for a state-centric approach to international
security. Moreover, the definitions that captured war, and conflict have traditionally narrowed international security to military
operations. Because of this traditional understanding, it is safe to make the inference that international security is highly a state-
centric perspective that opens the corridor for skepticism between powerful states and emerging powers.
On the flip side of the same coin, the above definitions of international security do not seem to resonate with contemporary
concerns in international security. This is simply because besides the threats primarily coming from states that require a
traditional response (military operations) they are also coming from ethnic groups obsessed with hyper nationalism, criminal
gangs, mafiosi governance, epidemics, AIDS, terrorism, dangerous food, poverty, economic mismanagement, over-population,
failed states, flows of refugees, and, most importantly, pollution and the effects of pollution, the irrigation and destruction of
nature, and the diversification of nature(climate change) (Heurlin & Kristensen, n.d.). This suggests the need for the definition to
move away from military operations or incorporate measures taken by states to ensure the safety and protection of their citizens
against threats that require a non-traditional approach or intervention in the international system. These threats that require non-
traditional intervention are also embodiments of states' interests in the international system.
The Importance of International Security
The definitions of international security reinforced by the recent global epidemic (COVID-19), the Russia-Ukraine War, the
Israel-Gaza Crisis, growing tension between China and Taiwan, the US and Russia, China and the US, the US and Iran, etc. are
just good enough to explain the importance of international security. This is because it explains why states engage in wars and
other complex security threats or issues. Moreover, it uncovers the security problems and opportunities that the world can
consider in remodeling international relations across the globe and provides an understanding of when states need to intervene in
each other's domestic affairs that threaten their national security interests.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 207
The dichotomy Between International Security and Global Security
Even though the focus of this paper is not about global security. However, it is important to bring out the dichotomy necessary to
clear possible misunderstandings between the two concepts.
As their names imply, it sounds logical to rationalize that the two concepts are related. However, they seem to differ on three
thematic areas namely scope, focus, and approach. Let’s take a closer look at each of the thematic areas.
Scope
International security principally examines the security concerns of individual states and their interactions with one another. It
focuses on traditional military threats, such as territorial disputes, arms proliferation, and interstate conflicts. Global security, on
the other hand, incorporates a broader scope, addressing both state-centric and non-state-centric challenges that affect the entire
international community (Universidad Francisco de Vitoria’s website, 2023).
Focus
The prime focus of international security is on the protection of a nation’s interests, sovereignty, and borders. It emphasizes both
military capabilities, intelligence gathering, and diplomatic efforts to maintain peace and stability (Universidad Francisco de
Vitoria’s website, 2023). The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and the most recent Israel-Gaza crisis are spectacular or
contemporary examples.
In contrast, global security places greater emphasis on addressing transnational threats, namely terrorism, cyber attacks, climate
change, and pandemics. It argues that the remedies for tackling issues in global security lie in collective actions and cooperation
among nations or countries (Universidad Francisco de Vitoria’s website, 2023). For example, the fight against global terrorism
championed by the US through its foreign policy.
Approach
International security often relies on a realist perspective, which prioritizes the national interest and the balance of power. It is
characterized by traditional approaches to security, including military build-up, alliances, and deterrence. The proliferation of
nuclear weapons causing skepticism and tension or conflict among power states such as the US, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, etc. could be used to qualify contemporary example. Global security, on the other hand, adopts a
liberalistic perspective that is more holistic and cooperative approach, emphasizing the interconnectedness of issues and the need
for multilateral cooperation. It recognizes the importance of addressing root causes and promoting sustainable development to
achieve long-term security (Universidad Francisco de Vitoria’s website, 2023).
Relevant Theories Associated with Issues in International Security
Judging from the general overview coupled with the dichotomy of international security, the realist theory and Social Contract
theory widely discussed in International Relations implicitly occupy critical and dominant space in issues in international security.
Let’s look at the reliance on this claim. The entire general overview of international security discussed in this paper throws more
emphasis on militarization as the institution states rely on to prevent and deal with conflicts and protect people and their way of
life. Arguably, the emphasis on militarization as the reliance seems quite interesting. However, it is not substantive enough to
explain the realist theory and the social contract theory. It is just the prelude to the theory. So, let’s delve into the nitty-gritty of the
theory to see how it supports the reliance.
Copious literature reviews continuously show that realism has traditionally been the dominant theory in international relations
that essentially encapsulates security studies since the end of War World II. Developed and polarized by historical thinkers such as
Niccolo Mechiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans J. Morgenthau, Arnold Wolfers, George F. Kennan, Robert
Strausz-Hupé, Henry Kissinger, and Reinhold Niebuhr that emerged in the 1930s, realism or known as political realism
emphasizes the role of the state, national interest, and power in world politics or international politics (Bell, 2023) that essentially
incorporate security as one of the thematic areas. The emphasis on realism treats the state as the referent object. In other words, in
the eyes of realist theory, the state is the main unit of analysis. Thus, realism is, therefore, primarily concerned with states and
their actions in the international system, as driven by competitive self-interest. Under the lenses of realism, states exist within an
anarchic international system in which they are ultimately dependent on their own capabilities, or power, to further their national
interests. The most important national interest is the survival of the state, including its people, political system, and territorial
integrity. Other major interests for realists include the preservation of a nation’s culture and economy. Therefore, the realists
argued that, as long as the world continues to be divided into nation-states in an anarchic setting, national interest will remain the
essence of international politics (Bell, 2023). By this assertion, it is errorless to equate the states to legitimate governments as the
leading players in international and regional systems (Ardam et al, 2021). In this context, the governments are the main rational
actors seeking to advance their national interests, responding to external threats, and taking advantage of opportunities provided
by regional and international order or systems. The national interests of governments are defined in terms of power. Power is the
stimulation of another actor's ability to adopt defined behavior based on the desired pattern or to refrain from performing
undesirable behavior. This power is achieved and maintained through diplomatic means by moving forces (militarization) (Ardam
et al, 2021).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 208
Realism and International Security
As it relates to international security, it is worth arguing that realists would believe that if the government cannot maintain its
security, it should do so nothing will be able to do. Under these conditions, an efficient military force to support diplomacy,
foreign policy, and finally, security is essential. Realism concludes that because governments are key players in the international
system, they will be the source of security. To this end, there are two sub-theories advanced by structural realists or neorealism
that seem to justify states' or governments' inclination to acquire more power in the international system. Defensive structural
realism and Offensive structural realism. Briefly, let’s take a careful look at each.
Defensive Structural Realism
Introduced by Kenneth Waltz, defensive structural realism holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they
are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. Moreover, it argues that states are obliged to behave this way
because doing so favors survival in the international system (Waltz,1979). In his historical but convincing essay on “International
Politics,” Waltz argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and
reserved policies to attain national security (Waltz, 1979). What is that ‘anarchical structure of the international system that
encourages states to refrain from conflict? Milner (1991) opines that in an anarchic structure, there is no hierarchically superior,
coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In his opinion, Waltz argued
that the absence of a higher authority than states in the international system means that states can only rely on themselves for their
own survival, requiring paranoid vigilance and constant preparation for conflict. In Man, the State, and War, Waltz describes
anarchy as a condition of possibility or a “permissive” cause of war (Waltz, 1954) He argues that “wars occur because there is
nothing to prevent them” (Waltz, 1954). Similarly, American political scientist John Herz argues that international anarchy assures
the centrality of the struggle for power “even in the absence of aggressivity or similar factors”, emphasizing that a state's interests
and actions are determined by the anarchic structure of the international system itself (Donnelly, 2000).
Offensive Structural Realism
Coined by John Mearsheimer, offensive structural realism comes as a contrast to defensive structural realism. It argues that states
face an uncertain international environment in which any state might employ its power to destroy another thus the best way to
remain secure or safe is the inclination to amass as much power (military capabilities) (Mearsheimer, 2001). Articulated by
Mearsheimer, offensive structural realism is built on five bedrock assumptions. The first assumption is that there is anarchy in the
international system, which means that there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can guarantee limits on the
behavior of states (Mearsheimer 2001, 30). Second, all great powers possess offensive military capabilities, which they are
capable of using against other states (2001, 30-31). Third, states can never be certain that other states will refrain from using those
offensive military capabilities (2001, 31). Fourth, states seek to maintain their survival (their territorial integrity and domestic
autonomy) above all other goals (2001, 31), as it is the means to all other ends (1990, 44). Fifth, states are rational actors, which
means that they consider the immediate and long-term consequences of their actions, and think strategically about how to survive
(2001, 31). Because the international order or system is filled with such uncertainty regarding states’ intentions, the nature of
states’ military capabilities, and other states’ assistance in a struggle against hostile states, Mearsheimer (2001, 31) argues that the
best way for great powers to ensure their survival – a goal which is favored above all others – is to maximize power and pursue
hegemony. The competition of militarization hegemony by the US, China, India, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, having their
respective military specialized units in space operations doubtlessly indicates that space has become a new war-fighting domain is
one of the contemporary examples of offensive structural realism eloquently articulated by John Mearsheimer. The US is the most
influential actor in space with advanced technology, a significant military presence, and the world’s largest budget spending on
space programs (Wehtje, 2023). Another classic and spectacular example is the alarm by the risk of nuclear escalation among
major Powers that threaten international peace.
Despite their significant contributions to international relations theory articulated by several prominent proponents, the two sub-
theories of realism have their own fair share of shortcomings. Collectively, none of them provide practical prescriptions for the
anarchical structure posing an informed threat to the international system.
The Social Contract Theory
Premised on the assumption that realism puts the security of the states in the hands of the government as mentioned under the
realist perspective, it makes sense to invoke the social contract theory as the crutch to support the realist views on international
security.
Popularized by Thomas Hobbes in his historic but classic essay “Leviathan” in the 17th century, the theory argued that in a state
of nature, without any governing authority, individuals would suffer a constant fear of violent death. To avoid this, they willingly
enter into a social contract where they surrender certain freedoms to a sovereign ruler (government) in exchange for protection
and security (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1946). Another progenitor, John Locke emphasized the importance of individual rights and
believed that the purpose of the social contract was to protect these rights. He argued that if a government failed to do so,
individuals had the right to rebel and establish a new social contract (Main, 2023).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 209
By understanding or interpretation, the social contract theory places the obligation upon the government or state as the contracting
party to protect its citizens against security threats. This is why Locke in his emphasis reminded the state or government about the
obvious consequences of reneging on the maintenance of domestic security. That is to say, as far as the contract or agreement is
concerned, the citizens reserve the right to replace the government either through popular uprising, popular sovereignty, or
through the ballot box.
Despite decades following the development and perhaps obvious demerits or shortcomings of the social contract theory, it has
shaped modern political thought and continues to be relevant in discussions on international security. By this explanation, the
realist posture taken by states or governments all in the name of protecting national security interests is quite understandable. For
example, the US military operation that killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan arguably violated international law could
exemplify the social contract as the US obligation to protect its citizens and vital installation against Qaeda threats. More
importantly, the US action in Pakistan supports realism especially offensive structural realism.
Relevant Actors of International Security
From the general overview of international security coupled with the relevant theories, it can be easily inferred that the states
equated to governments referred to as state actors and non-state actors are the core actors driving the agenda of international
security.
State Actors
Core state actors equated to relevant government functionaries include the military or armed forces, police, gendarmerie, border
guards, customs and immigration, and intelligence and security services. Each of these security institutions by statute performs
multiple functions or duties that help to maintain national security. In the international system, state actors push and protect the
national security interests of their respective governments or states. A typical example would be the ongoing retaliatory war
between Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Gaza that bordered on the national security interests of both states. More importantly,
these countries' positions seem to be justifiable under the lens of the realist theory.
Non-State Actors
Bearing in mind that the definition of international security mentions peacekeeping, and diplomatic channels or means to prevent,
and deal with conflict germane to the protection of lives and vital installation the critical position occupied by non-state actors is
implied. Non-state actors are international organizations predominantly composed of different states or countries. International
organizations include the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and others, to ensure mutual
survival and safety. A fresh or memorable example of diplomacy was the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) resolution
1325 which ended the 14 years of civil war in Liberia.
At the level (international system), the interests of state actors often overshadow and dictate the agenda of international security
to the detriment of the innocent civilian population. A classic example can be seen in what this paper described as a toothless
bulldog Resolution 2720 adopted by the UN Security Council on 22 December 2023 as a diplomatic intervention for the ongoing
crisis in Gaza. With 13 votes in favor, and the US and Russia abstaining, the resolution, among other points, demands immediate,
safe, and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale directly to the Palestinian civilian population throughout the
Gaza Strip (UN, 2023). Up to the submission of this paper, Israel because of its national security interest has yet to respect and
honor the resolution. Moreover, and arguably, the way the votes went including abstention and various responses from state actors
Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives, is enough to explain how national security interests overshadow the urgent
humanitarian imperative.
Major Threats Associated with International Security
As mentioned in the introduction, it would seem impractical to discuss issues in international security without regard for major
security threats, this segment of the paper provides a catalog of major threats associated with international security.
Arguably, since the end of the Cold War, the international security landscape has changed dramatically. Relations between all the
major powers are now comparatively stable and there has been less conflict between states. However, the dramatic changes
fostered by international corporations and peace policy in the landscape of international security did not eliminate or alleviate the
obvious threats. Look at the below catalog.
Terrorism
It is a highly contestable concept and phenomenon that lacks a universal consensual definition under international law. Because of
its subjective interpretations or political and ideological connotations, it has taken multiple definitions confined to the context of
states' jurisprudence or statutes that designate terrorist groups.
Since 9/11, terrorism has emerged as a major threat to international security, this includes the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq, the
Levant, or ISIL/Da’esh, Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), Afghan Taliban, Al-Nusrah Front, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sharia. Lord’s
Resistance Army, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), Al-Qa'ida Core (AQ), Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian. Peninsula (AQAP), Hamas,
Hezbollah, Boko Haram, TWJWA, also known as the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) (Counter
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 210
Terrorism Guide, n.d.). The political and ideological connotations of terrorism explain the reasons for its growing or increasing
existence. Regardless of the reasons thereof, terrorism is one of the major threats to international security simply because it has
targeted and killed innocent civilians who know nothing about its provocation.
IV. The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)
Since its inception in 1994, the UNSC President declared the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction to be a threat to
international peace and security (International Peace Academy, 2004). According to the UN General Assembly resolution
A/RES/32/84-B, Weapons of Mass Destruction is defined as “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal
chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in
destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.” (UN, n.d.)
Weapons of mass destruction constitute a class of weaponry with the potential to:
Produce in a single moment an enormously destructive effect capable of killing millions of civilians, jeopardizing the
natural environment, and fundamentally altering the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects (UN,
n.d.)
Cause death or serious injury of people through toxic or poisonous chemicals.
Disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals, or plants (UN, n.d.)
Deliver nuclear explosive devices, chemical, biological, or toxin agents to use them for hostile purposes or in armed
conflict (UN, n.d.)
When viewed under a humanitarian lens, WMD technology can spread in many ways. Components of WMD, their delivery
systems, or related materials may be hidden in cargo and transported by land, air, or sea. They can be sold for cash,
cryptocurrency, or through wire transfer. Or someone can pass along specialized knowledge or expertise (Russell, 2006). Those
states most actively working to develop weapons of mass destruction, although limited in number, are for the most part located in
unstable regions of the world the Middle East, South Asia, and the Korean peninsula. For at least the next decade, few if any of
these states will be able to deliver such weapons more than a thousand kilometers or so in a reliable and timely manner.
Therefore, the greatest threat posed by these states is to their neighbors and regional stability (Al Mauroni et al, 2021).
Militarization of the Space
International concern is growing about the use and potential misuse of space. The militarization of space is not new, yet it has
developed and become more advanced today. Major powers, such as the US, China, and Russia, now have their own military
units specialized in space operations, indicating that space has become a new war-fighting domain. The militarization of space
and developments in space technologies have resulted in growing tensions hinting at a need for new agreements to promote
cooperation. So far, the UN has made several unsuccessful attempts to reach a new space treaty (Wehtje, 2023). The US is the
most influential actor in space with advanced technology, significant military presence, and the world’s largest budget spending
on space programs. As stated by former President Trump in 2019, “Space is the world’s newest war-fighting domain,” and space
has become an increasing source of threat to the national security of the US (Wehtje, 2023).
Cyber Threats/Attacks
From an international security perspective, cyber threats or attacks endanger the safety of modern states, organizations, and
international relations. Whether it happens as a conflict between states, a terrorist, or a criminal act, is an attack in cyberspace to
compromise a computer system or network, but also compromising physical systems as was the case with the Stuxnet worm. In
layman's, popular terms, most often mentioned in the media, it is called a hacker attack. Identical methods of a hacker attack are
applied for both military and terrorist purposes (Cvrtila & Ivanjko, 2022).
The USA, Russia, and China are nations known for their skilled military cyber units. In addition to the above mentioned states,
France and Israel are working on the development of cyber capabilities. American intelligence officers believe that there are 20 to
30 armies with respectful capabilities for cyber-war, including Taiwan, Iran, Australia, South Korea, India, Pakistan, and several
NATO countries (Risk Based Security, 2014). The United States Cyber Command, along with the agencies they work with, has
some of the most intelligent, patriotic-minded civil servants, both military and civilian, who create plans and capabilities for
domination in cyberspace intending to preserve national security and peace (Risk Based Security, 2014). Arguably, the
involvement of these states in cyber activities creates multipolarity of cyberspace is enough to explain the threat to international
security.
Climate Change
Debatably, climate change has moved away from emerging threats to one of the major threats posed to international security. All
the international fora on climate change that have brought together community of nations and international communities bear
testimony of the threat climate change posed to human security. For example, extreme weather is becoming increasingly common
as the world gets warmer. Recurrent droughts in Africa; floods in Asia and Latin America; and violent wind and fire storms
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 211
affecting even rich countries are destroying homes and livelihoods and creating new vicious cycles of poverty. Rising sea levels,
changing seasons and the threat of new disease outbreaks are affecting rural and urban communities and increasing tensions as
water supplies dwindle, food prices rise, and people leave their homes to seek safety elsewhere (Universidad Europea, 2023).
Conflict and War
Civil and internal conflicts, insurgencies, and political chaos that have caused massive displacement of people, massive deaths,
and destruction of vital installations or infrastructure remain one of the biggest threats to international security. According to
Universidad Europea, (2023) because of conflict and war, there are now more than 82 million people living in refugee and
displacement camps or far from home, creating tensions between host communities, forcing families to make dangerous journeys,
and exposing vulnerable people, especially women and children, to trafficking gangs and exploitation. Countries such as Mali,
Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Yemen, South Sudan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela Myanmar, etc.
are either confronted with civil and internal conflict, political chaos, or insurgency.
Hunger and Malnutrition
Captured as number two “Zero Hunger” under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) inaugurated in September 2015 is
enough attestation that hunger and malnutrition are among the threats to international security. According to this goal,
malnourished children are more likely to die from infectious diseases such as diarrhoea, measles, and pneumonia (UN, n.d.).
Artificial intelligence
In the words of Frankenfield (2023), artificial intelligence, or AI, refers to the simulation of human intelligence by software-coded
heuristics. Similarly, Schorer (2024) defined AI as a wide-ranging branch of computer science concerned with building smart
machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. Research has documented AI implications for
international security. In her well-researched report, Puscas (2024) eloquently conceptualized the risks or threats AI poses to
international security. Accordingly, AI technology has the proclivity to cause three risks namely miscalculations, escalation, and
proliferation. When it comes to miscalculations, the inclination of the intelligence community to use AI as a tool for forecasting
has implications for military decision-making. Conceptually, she argued that misuses or failures of the technology can result in
grave errors in intelligence reporting, incorrect interpretations of an evolving operational context, and grave miscalculations in
armed conflict. Moreover, AI can impact the international security landscape more broadly, such as by introducing uncertainties
to strategy and the future of conflict (Puscas, 2024).
As for escalation, Puscas (2024) claimed that AI can increase the risks of escalation in myriad ways, such as by integration into
weapons systems (e.g., nuclear, or conventional), by triggering intended or inadvertent forms of escalation, and also through its
integration in decision-support systems where AI may prompt decisions to escalate.
On the side of proliferation, she pinpointed several risks associated with AI, including a result of the convergence between AI and
other technological domains, or the proliferation of AI technologies themselves because of the wide dissemination of AI-powered
software which can be repurposed or fine-tuned by a wide range of actors (Puscas, 2024).
In summation, this paper opinionates that among all the threats mentioned above, terrorism because of its unpredictability since
9/11 has become the most important threat to contemporary international security.
Issues in International Security
This sub-section presents the crux of the paper. In the opinion of this paper, issues in international security are different from
international security threats. Arguably, the issues are the multiplicity of factors impeding the prevention, protection, alleviation,
repelling, etc. the international security threats. These issues are tied to the causes of the threat. In other words, to tackle or
address the threats, it is imperative to take serious cognizance of the issues. For the benefit of any doubt, let me provide the
elucidation.
Issue 1: National Security Interests
It may sound strange to catalog national security interests as one of the issues in international security. Let’s see how it fits in.
As the name suggests, national security interests are matters of vital interest to all countries. They include national security, public
safety, national economic security, the safe and reliable functioning of critical infrastructure, and the availability of key resources.
Of particular concern is national security, viewed as an umbrella concept that captures the rest of the variables in the definition.
However, its application or interpretations remain state-centric or driven by states’ connotations creating the grounds to view the
concept as very subjective. For instance, in Subramaniam's concepts, national security is anything that gets in the way of state
progress, whether inside or outside, that is a national security threat against the interest of that state (Subramaniam, 1972). From
the look of Subrammanim’s concept, the use of “anything” that lies in the purview of the state makes the concept to be subjective.
And because of that, it is an issue. Ponder deeply about this situation. Why does the US perceive the nuclear arsenal possessed by
Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea as a serious issue to its national security interest and by extension international security but
at the same time have no issues with France, India, the UK, etc. possessing nuclear arsenal? Regardless of the possession, aren’t
nuclear arsenal posing a significant threat to international security? Is this not an issue in international security? So, with the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 212
issue, how is it possible for the international community precisely the UN to deal with the situation? Granted, the UN has adopted
a good number of normative frameworks such as Resolution 1540 (2004), The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(TPNW), UNSC Resolution 984, etc. to address the proliferation of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. However,
the effectiveness of these framework documents remains debatable. This is evidenced by the proliferation.
It can be argued that because national security interests are so vital to state survivability, a state could do whatever it takes within
its power to protect its interests. For example, the US through its approved military operation code name “Navy SEAL mission”
under the Obama regime ignored international law and best practices by using the Black Hawks, coated with special radar-
evading paint and panels enter Pakistani airspace and subsequently killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in 2011(Hashim,
2013). Similarly, Russia in the name of protecting its national security interest continues to bombard Ukraine, and Israel is also
doing the same against Gaza. These examples are not to imply that national security interests are bad in themselves. Absolutely
not. The way or manner states construct the concept that is sometimes detrimental to other states explains the issues.
States Perceptions of Multiple Security Threats
Arguably, many current threats associated with international security lie beyond the capacity of any one country to resolve.
Therefore, the concept of cooperative security seems to be one of the viable options or alternatives. Unfortunately, the issue of
states’ perceptions of multiple security threats could make them more reluctant to pursue cooperative security because while
efforts might improve one situation, they could have unforeseeable consequences for another. So, with this issue, it makes no
error to see it as one of the factors impeding the fight against threats associated with international security.
The Issue of Double Standard
In the opinion of this paper, the concept of double standard is one of the issues impeding the fight against some of the threats
associated with international security. Take the case of the double standard of nuclear weapons by reflecting on these assertions
below.
“The real danger comes from some miserable Third World country which decides to use these weapons either out of desperation
or incivility,” says Kenneth Adelman (cited in Gusterson, 2006, p2). “There have to be nuclear weapons in the hands of more
responsible countries to deter such use” by Third World nations, says Hans Bethe (cited in Gusterson, 2006, p2). These two
assertions reflect a Western-centric mentality determining which states or countries should possess a nuclear arsenal. The West
sets the standard that looks down on third world county and more importantly, apportioned the danger to third world countries. In
other words, this Western-centric mentality or notion sees the third world country as lacking the technical maturity to be trusted
with nuclear weapons. On the flip side of the same coin that stereotyped third world countries, it is worth asking the question does
the West have the technical infallibility nuclear weapons ideally require (Gusterson, 2006)?
Besides the double standard of nuclear weapons frustrating the fight against the threats to international security, the UN's double
standard on Israel is conspicuously indisputable. For example, within the past fifty years, Israel has invaded and attacked
numerous neighboring countries without any true consequences from the U.N. The invaded countries include Egypt, Jordan, Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Despite all the unrest that these invasions have caused in the Middle East, the UN has never
forcefully acted against Israel including the most recent retaliatory attack on Gaza causing a serious humanitarian catastrophe.
The U.N. should have acted against Israel as strongly as it did against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The US double standard in the fight against global terrorism cannot go unnoticed in this paper. The Biden administration employs
a double standard when it comes to Afghanistan. President Biden appeases the Taliban and deals with them despite a notorious
terrorist group, i.e. the Haqqani network. Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of the terrorist Haqqani network, is wanted by the FBI.
The State Department promises a 10 million dollar reward for information leading to his arrest. Haqqani is also the interior
minister of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate and has repeatedly shown face in a variety of official ceremonies (Entekhabifard, 2022).
Interestingly, the Biden administration is fully aware that this same terrorist who was on the US’s own Top Wanted lists is n ow
committing crimes against humanity as the Taliban’s interior minister. Haqqani is on record to have accepted responsibility for
planning of the 2008 terrorist attack on Kabul’s Hotel Serena. Six people, including an American citizen, Thor Hesla, were killed
in this attack. He has also admitted that he had planned the assassination of then-Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, in April 2008.
He has organized many more suicide attacks against the citizens of Afghanistan and the forces of the coalition. Despite an
authoritative report by United Nations experts in June 2023 noting the “strong and symbiotic” links between the Taliban, the
Haqqani network, al-Qaida, and other terror groups, the Biden administration has softened Washington’s stance on the Taliban as
a sponsor of terrorism (Pforzheimer, 2023).
The Incompatibility of National Interests
From an international politics perspective, the incompatibility of national interests has been one of the key issues associated with
international security. In a simple explanation, the incompatibility of national interests connotes a clash of national interests
among or between states throughout history. There is no degree of certainty as to the definition of national interest, and there is no
consensus among statesmen, scholars and practitioners of international politics as to the nature and constitution of the national
interest of a state. This is because what determines a nation’s interest varies from nation to nation, as different criteria are used to
determine what constitutes the national interests of nations. The question of who defines the national interest of a nation has
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 213
always come up when scholars try to analyze approaches to foreign policy formulation vis-a-vis national interest. Attempting to
answer this question, Alade (1997) stated that national interest is often determined by the interest of the dominant class who
controls the state’s government machinery. This is a testimony that it is the elites in the state that determine what should be of
interest to that state which forms the platform for its foreign policy formulation. Morgenthau (1972) made us comprehend that all
foreign policies of nations “must consider survival as their minimum requirement since national interest is identified with national
survival”. The national interest of a nation must be connected to that state’s desire to survive. It is connected to security which
could be economic, political, military, or ideological security that must not be exposed to external threats. This is in agreement
with Van, Dyke’s (1957) assertion that “national security relates to the ultimate desire that the state survives and lives without
serious external threat to its values or interest which are regarded as important or vital. By Dyke’s claims, it can be rationalized
that all nations are therefore obliged to protect their physical, political, economic, and possibly, cultural identity against being
encroached upon by other nations.
On the grounds of survivability, states would do all they can to protect their national interests. Consequently, it becomes an issue
if the protection of their national interests clashes with another state(s). The ongoing Russian military aggression against Ukraine
which is viewed by many legal and political pundits as an invasion from all indications qualified as a spectacular case or example
of incompatibility of national interests between Russia and Ukraine that threatens international security. Based on the concept of
the notorious fact that does not demand citation, the global community is aware that one of the main reasons for Russia's invasion
of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 stemmed from Ukraine's sovereign right to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
which would have further enhanced the NATO eastward expansion. Mindful of its national security interest, Russia viewed
Ukraine's manifest expression as incompatible with its national security interest and therefore warned that it would embark on
special military operations to protect its national security interest. On the contrary, Ukraine insisted that its decision was strategic
to their national security interest as well. This example of incompatible national interests is not to determine the merits of the
justification advanced by Russia's invasion and Ukraine’s retaliation. It is just to explain how the incompatibility of national
interests is an issue in international security.
Another spectacular example is the U.S., and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible causing geopolitical
tension. A few experts have given their opinions on the issue. For example, Elliott Abrams, a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations asserts “A China not ruled by the Communist Party would have not only different
domestic policies but quite different foreign policies as well (Foreign Affairs Asks the Experts, 2018).
Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government posits “China and the
United States share some vital national interests, for example, no general war between them, but have conflicting national
interests, for example over who will be the predominant power in the Western Pacific (Foreign Affairs Asks the Experts, 2018).
Rebecca Friedman Lissner, Research Fellow at Perry World House, the University of Pennsylvania’s Global Policy Research
Center argues “Although the United States and China share certain interests on matters of global governance, they have opposing
interests in the Asian regional order. Whether and how these competing interests are managed will be the defining geopolitical
question of twenty-first century geopolitics” (Foreign Affairs Asks the Experts, 2018).
No doubt the views expressed by the various experts present their individual opinion. However, what cannot be refuted or denied
about the incompatibility of national interests between the US and China is that Beijing is pursuing regional hegemony over Asia,
especially the Indo-Pacific region which is incompatible with the US national security interest. If successful, China will very
likely pursue the kind of global preeminence that would enable it to directly intervene in and exercise a domineering influence
over Americans’ lives (Colby, 2023). Arguably, because the US is cognizant of the implications China's aspiration to dominate
the Indo-Pacific region will have on international security, it is doing everything within its diplomatic prowess by improving
relations with other countries like Taiwan to counter Beijing's hegemonic ambitions. This incompatibility of national interests
between the US and China has sparked geopolitical tension that was exacerbated by the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker
Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022 despite warning of the repercussions from Beijing (Haenle & Sher, 2022).
V. Conclusion
As mentioned in the introduction, this paper comes as a course requirement meant to expose the author's (student) comprehension
of the course “Issues in International Security”. It does not cover all the thematic areas that embody the course.
This paper has provided the argument that the threats associated with international security are not the issues. As discussed, the
issues in international security are a multiplicity of factors impeding or frustrating the fight against the threats in international
security. This implies that to address the threats associated with international security, the actors in the theater of international
security must take serious cognizance of the issues elaborated in this paper.
To put it another way, this paper concludes that the issues discussed in the paper are the causes of the threats associated with
international security.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 214
Disclaimer
The author of this article is solely responsible for the views expressed herein. The organizations including the academic
institutions the author is attached to do not take positions on the scholarship of the faculty and this article should not be
interpreted or portrayed in any way as reflecting the official position of either organization.
References
1. Alade, C.A. (1997) Theory, Concept and Principles in the study of International Relations. Lagos: Elmi Educational
Limited.
2. Ardam et al, (2021) Security from The Perspectives of Realism, Copenhagen, Liberalism with A Little Taste of
Technology
3. Aorere, M. (n.d.) International Security https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rights-and-security/international-security/
4. Al Mauroni et al, (2021) A Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy for the 21st Century
https://warontherocks.com/2021/09/a-weapons-of-mass-destruction-strategy-for-the-21st-century/
5. Aljazeera News (2023) Israel retaliation kills 230 Palestinians after Hamas operation
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/sirens-warn-of-rockets-launched-towards-israel-from-gaza-news-reports
6. Bell, D. (2023) Realism international relations https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science
7. B0145 (2022) International Security https://www.unibo.it/en/teaching/course-unit-catalogue/course-unit/2022/484255
8. Cvrtila, D, & Ivanjko, T. (2022) International cyber security challenges
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318690879
9. Counter Terrorism Guide, (n.d.) Terrorism in North and West Africa
https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups/north_and_west_africa.html
10. Counter Terrorism Guide, (n.d.) Terrorist Groups - https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups.html
11. Colby, E. (2023) A Strategy of Denial for the Western Pacific
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/march/strategy-denial-western-pacific
12. Donnelly, J, (2000) Realism and International Relations
13. Entekhabifard, C. (2022) US Double Standard on Terrorism https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3455186/camelia-
entekhabifard/us-double-standard-terrorism
14. Foreign Affairs Asks the Experts, (2018) U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ask-the-experts/2018-08-14/are-us-and-chinese-national-interests-incompatible
15. Frankenfield, J. (2023) Artificial Intelligence (AI): What It Is and How It Is Used
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/artificial-intelligence-ai.asp
16. Gusterson, H. (2006) A Double Standard on Nuclear Weapons?
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/20630/Double_Standard_08.pdf
17. Heurlin & Kristensen (n.d.) International Security. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS – Vol.II – International Security
18. Haenle, P. & Sher, N. (2022) How Pelosi’s Taiwan Visit Has Set a New Status Quo for U.S-China Tensions
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2022/08/how-pelosis-taiwan-visit-has-set-a-new-status-quo-for-us-china-
tensions?lang=en
19. Hashim, A. (2013) The raid: How it happened. How it hsappened https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/8/the-raid-
how-it-happened
20. International Peace Academy (2004) Weapons of Mass Destruction and the United Nations: Diverse Threats and
Collective Responses https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/weapons_of_mass_dest.pdf
21. Milner, H. (1991). "The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique". Review of International
Studies. 17 (1): 67–85. doi:10.1017/S026021050011232X. ISSN 0260-2105. JSTOR 20097244. S2CID 145793567.
22. Morgenthau, H. (1972) politics Among Nations: The Struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred Knopt.
23. Main, P. (2023) Social Contract Theory https://www.structural-learning.com/post/social-contract-theory
24. Owa, M. (2023) Desk Research: Definition, Types, Application, Pros & Cons https://www.formpl.us/blog/desk-research-
definition-types-application-pros-cons
25. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (1946) Hobbes, T. Leviathan. Edited by M. Oakeshott.
26. Pforzheimer, A. (2023) Biden Could Be Preparing to Upgrade Ties with the Taliban
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/us-afghanistan-taliban/
27. Russell, J. (2006) WMD Proliferation, Globalization, and International Security: Whither the Nexus and National
Security?
28. Risk Based Security (2014) A Breakdown and Analysis of the Sony Hack,
https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and- analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/#thebeginning
(9.4.2017.)
29. Schorer, A. (2024) Artificial Intelligence. What Is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? How Does AI work?
https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence
30. Stockholm University (n.d.) International Security https://www.su.se/english/research/research-subjects/international-
relations/international-security
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 215
31. Subrahmanyam, K. (1972) Our National Security, Delhi page 7
32. United Nations (2023) Security Council adopts key resolution on Gaza crisis; Russia, US abstain
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145022
33. United Nations (n.d.) Weapons of Mass Destruction- https://www.unrcpd.org/wmd/
34. United Nations (n.d.) The 17 Goals - https://sdgs.un.org/goals
35. Universidad Francisco de Vitoria’s website (2023) Is International Security and Global Security the Same?
https://www.ufv.es/is-international-security-and-global-security-the-same-preguntas-masters/
36. Universidad Europea (2023) International security threats – What are the main ones?
https://universidadeuropea.com/en/blog/international-security-threats/
37. Dyke, V. (195 7) International Politics. New York: Meredith Corporation.
38. Wehtje, B. (2023) Increased Militarisation of Space – A New Realm of Security https://behorizon.org/increased-
militarisation-of-space-a-new-realm-of-security/
39. Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
40. Waltz, K. N. (1954). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN
9780231125376.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VIII, August 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 216
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ambrues Monboe Nebo Sr. is an interdisciplinary researcher with an academic background in Sociology, Peace and Conflict
Studies with an emphasis on Humanitarian and Refugee Studies, Public Administration, Law Enforcement, and peacekeeping
operations. Currently, he is Ph.D. Student reading Security Studies with an emphasis on international security at the HILL-CITY
UNIVERSITY Accredited Degree programmes in the REPUBLIC OF BENIN. Professionally, he is a senior police officer of
the Liberia National Police with 18 years of experience in Training, Administration, and Data Collection (criminal/security
intelligence)
He has authored four books namely:
1. The Politicization of the Criminal Justice System: A Liberian Perspective‟ available at
https://www.amazon.com/Politicization-Criminal-JusticeSystem-Socio-Political/dp/6139445337 and Morebooks shop.
2. The Wave of Protests Leading to Regimes Change in Africa: A Sociological Perspective available at
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9975153461
3. Introduction to Liberia Criminal Justice System: A Concise Edition available at
https://www.morebooks.de/store/us/book/introduction-toliberia-criminal-justice-system/isbn/978-620-3-04123-1
4. Liberian Society in Focus: An Introduction to Sociology available at: https://www.amazon.fr/LIBERIAN-SOCIETY-
FOCUS-INTRODUCTION-SOCIOLOGY/dp/1639024425https://libroterra.com/shop/social-science/liberian-society-in-
focus-an-introduction-to-sociology/
Also, he has authored more than a dozen of articles dealing with contemporary issues in Africa and Liberia that can be accessed
online at https://neboambrues.academia.edu, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar using the author’s full names.
