29. Passage 5:
According to conventional security theories, as well as most human security scholars, the first actor and foremost responsible actor for providing human security is the state, i.e. the complex of institntions that govern a people within a definite territory. This logically follows from the way the world is socially organised - in states - and rests on the assumption that states are responsible for the security of their people, which is actually one of the key reasons for the very emergence of states as such.
Another example of this type of actor are external states or multilateral coalitions of states that intervene to prevent massive violations of human rights, which occur because of either the lawlessness caused by weak state institutions or the oppressiveness of an authoritarian regime. The strategy of such interventions is that the traditional state's structures which should provide security are assisted - in the case of an operation labelled as 'R2P' - or bypassed without consent - in the case of a humanitarian intervention - in order to directly help the people in need. The reason for such courses of action is the fact that the state's security apparatus is not doing what it is supposed to do, i.e. actually providing security. In failed states this is characterised by a lac of control, because of which lawlessness and crime can prevail, while in oppressive states, the very security apparatus is used to control and oppress the population or specific groups of people.
In time of conflict, when human security from above can (apparently) no longer be relied upon, human security from below prevails; self~protection and horizontally organised forms of security emerge, as sub-state structures, like families (clans), political factions and militias (partly) take over the traditional role of the state as security provider, sometimes by establishing a localised monopoly on the use offorce, a security zone. The longer these sub-state structures exist, the more difficult it becomes to neglect them, especially when they enjoy considerable popular support. Critical Security Studies specifically take these sub~ or non-state actors into account
While bypassing the state's official (human) security structures, external interventions often also bypass these sub-state actors. Despite the supposed prevalence of individuals over the state, human security from below initiativ~s, which are partly fonns of transitional security but may well transfonn into entities in their own right in the political landscape of the state where the conflict is taking place, are often neglected. 1.,. fac~ in most cases such initiatives are viewed as major obstacles (spoilers) on the road to restoring central power. But while violent conflict does not only leave physical scars, the social and security fabric also suffers severely, something that too often remains understated. The reconfiguration of the security fabric, which is a logical consequence of violent conflict, is interpreted as an unwanted temporary· phase, in which local actors are undesired competitors, instead of a (temporary) countermeasure to the grave insecurity that characterises war, which many people who are confronted with the daily violence prefer over the absence of any order at all. ..
[Source: Mient Jau Faber and Martljn Dekker, "Violent Conflict aud the Individual Security Dilemma", in Mary Martin and Taylor Owen (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Human Security, 2014:125-138]
Q. The authors refer to the state as lithe complex of institutions that govern a people within a definite territory". Which other aspect essential to defining the state is missing here? (University of Hyderabad MA 2020)