Security is framed within the empirical sciences, specifically a cultural factual science (Rickert) as described by Enrique Fentanes,[6] although other authors frame it within the social sciences "since it involves the development of social behaviors linked to the protection of people, their property, their rights",[7] from this perspective it is also understood as a cross-disciplinary science since it includes knowledge of both law and criminalistics, criminology, scientific investigation of crime[8] (among other areas of knowledge) focused on protection.
The approach that seeks security is that of risk management (mainly focused on prevention), which differs, for example, from law, which is the normative order of human behavior in society. This comparison is not minor, given that confusion is common where legal professionals (lawyers, judges, prosecutors) take powers that are typical of Security Sciences, generating the layout of public policies without taking into account issues such as risk analysis or the empirical knowledge of Security professionals. This, however, is something considered by different regulations where in certain countries a qualifying title is required to carry out security tasks.[9][10].
In the realist tradition of International Relations, security is a state closely related to war and its threat, specifically the threat to the survival of the state as a main actor at the international level.[11].
Arnold Wolfers (1962), a realist academic, defined two sides of the concept of security: «Security in the objective sense measures the absence of threats to acquired values; in the subjective sense, the absence of fear that said values could be destroyed. To be safe would be, therefore, to be free of fears and, at the same time, free of needs.
Thus, security is, a priori, a concept with positive connotations, but who defines the needs? Who defines fears? Traditionally, classical scholars understood that security, to perpetuate their existence, was the objective to which states aspired, what motivated their behavior and strategies in international relations. States were seen as the only actors intervening on the international scene and, therefore, it was their interests that determined international actions. This approach alludes to national security as the main motivation of the actors. A transnational approach will also focus on states as the main actors, but, at the same time, will attempt to promote international security as the desirable objective of the international community. This is also why the concepts "security" and "peace" are often found together in United Nations jargon. In favor of international security, the highest decision-making body of the UN is called the Security Council, since its main mission is to ensure peace and security.
This conception centered on states has been the prevailing one in international relations, both as an academic discipline and as a sphere of action of the states themselves. But defining a concept as broad and with so much political and historical charge as "security" would be a utopian task if what we want is to find an ahistorical and decontextualized magic formula passe-partout. It is evident that the idea of 'security' for a Filipino worker in Qatar will be quite different from that of the Japanese foreign minister or that of a Greek pensioner.
How security is conceptualized or what adjective accompanies “security” (national, international, human, food, environmental, etc.) influences security and defense policies, but also, and notably, privacy policies and internal citizen regulation laws of states or public security laws. Currently, with the globalization of organized violence, human security is lost in favor of a renewed emphasis on Homeland Security. Now our security is not threatened from beyond the borders but from the neighbor next door, from the passerby who crosses us, from the computer at home.
But is there a discord between the concept of security perceived by administrations and governments and what the general population understands? This divergence means that threats that directly affect the immediate well-being of the population, such as unemployment or poverty, are displaced not only as until now in classic defense and military policies but also in the country's internal affairs. This also generates an unresolved debate about the responsibility to protect, a new form that would justify military interventions abroad as what Michael Walzer calls "just wars." The term has also taken on special political importance as part of the Western role and discourse on the international scene since the 19th century.[12][13].