Application 2 – Annotated BibliographyAs part of your doctoral s.docx

Application 2 – Annotated Bibliography
As part of your doctoral seminar for this set of weeks, you are
participating in a seminar-style discussion about the weekly
topics. Recall that you were asked to address 5 of the Required
Resources and at least 5 additional resources from the Walden
Library and to incorporate them into your posting. As a related
exercise, submit an annotated bibliography of the 10 resources
you referred to this week. For each entry, be sure to address the
following as a minimum:
· Include the full APA citation
· Discuss the scope of the resource
· Discuss the purpose and philosophical approach
· Discuss the underlying assumptions
· If referring to a research reporting article, present the
methodology
· Relate the resource to the body of resources you have
consulted in this course
· Discuss any evident limitations and opportunities for further
inquiry
Ressources
Articles
· Ben-Megachem, M., & Gelbard, R. (2002). Integrated IT
management tool kit. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 96--
102.
Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database
This article explores the tools used in IT management.
· Bower, J. L., & Gilbert, C. G. (2007). How managers'
everyday decisions create or destroy your company's
strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 72--79.
The authors of this article look at who is behind the decisions

that drive a company's strategy and the impact this has on the
organization as a whole.
· Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication
richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the
contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145--167.
This article looks at the recent shift in support of the
information richness theory (IRT) and how this has forced the
need for a new definition of communication richness.
· Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology:
Rethinking the concept of technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398--427.
In this article, the author examines a new theoretical model with
which to look at the interactions between technology and
organizations.
· Orlov, L. (2008, March 5). Why IT management frameworks
don't guarantee IT success. CIO Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.cio.com/article/192901/Why_IT_Management_
Frameworks_Don_t_Guarantee_IT_Success
The author of this article looks at why IT management
frameworks are not always responsible for an organization's IT
success rate.
· Schneier, B. (2008, May 26). How to sell security. CIO
Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.cio.com/article/367913/How_to_Sell_Security
· Scott, J. E., & Vessey, I. (2002). Managing risks in enterprise
systems implementations. Communications of the ACM, 45(4),
74–81.
· Van Grembergen, W. (2003) The balanced scorecard and IT

governance. Information Systems Control Journal. Link
available in the Weeks 1-2 Resources section of the classroom.
· Jennex, M. E. (2005). End-user system development: Lessons
from a case study of IT usage in an engineering
organization. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(2),
67–81.
· The concept of security ( See the file attached)
The APA is offering the Cultural Formulation Interview
(including the Informant
Version) and the Supplementary Modules to the Core Cultural
Formulation
Interview for further research and clinical evaluation. They
should be used in
research and clinical settings as potentially useful tools to
enhance clinical
understanding and decision-making and not as the sole basis for
making a
clinical diagnosis. Additional information can be found in
DSM-5 in the Section
III chapter “Cultural Formulation.” The APA requests that
clinicians and
researchers provide further data on the usefulness of these
cultural formulation
interviews at http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Feedback-Form.aspx.
Measure: Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI)
Rights granted: This material can be reproduced without

permission by
researchers and by clinicians for use with their patients.
Rights holder: American Psychiatric Association
To request permission for any other use beyond what is
stipulated above,
contact:
http://www.appi.org/CustomerService/Pages/Permissions.aspx
http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Feedback-Form.aspx
http://www.appi.org/CustomerService/Pages/Permissions.aspx
Page 1 of 3
Copyright © 2013 American Psychiatric Association. All Rights
Reserved.
This material can be reproduced without permission by
Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI)
Supplementary modules used to expand each CFI subtopic are
noted in parentheses.
GUIDE TO INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
INTERVIEWER ARE ITALICIZED.
The following questions aim to clarify key aspects of the
presenting clinical problem from the point of view of
the individual and other members of the individual’s
social network (i.e., family, friends, or others involved
in current problem). This includes the problem’s
meaning, potential sources of help, and expectations
for services.

INTRODUCTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL:
I would like to understand the problems that bring you here so
that I can
help you more effectively. I want to know about your
experience and
ideas. I will ask some questions about what is going on and how
you
are dealing with it. Please remember there are no right or wrong
an-
swers.
CULTURAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
CULTURAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
(Explanatory Model, Level of Functioning)
Elicit the individual’s view of core problems and key
concerns.
Focus on the individual’s own way of understanding the
problem.
Use the term, expression, or brief description elicited in
question 1 to identify the problem in subsequent
questions (e.g., “your conflict with your son”).
1. What brings you here today?
IF INDIVIDUAL GIVES FEW DETAILS OR ONLY
MENTIONS
SYMPTOMS OR A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, PROBE:
People often understand their problems in their own way, which
may

be similar to or different from how doctors describe the
problem. How
would you describe your problem?
Ask how individual frames the problem for members of
the social network.
2. Sometimes people have different ways of describing their
problem to
their family, friends, or others in their community. How would
you
describe your problem to them?
Focus on the aspects of the problem that matter most to
the individual.
3. What troubles you most about your problem?
CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS OF CAUSE, CONTEXT, AND
SUPPORT
CAUSES
(Explanatory Model, Social Network, Older Adults)
This question indicates the meaning of the condition for
the individual, which may be relevant for clinical care.
4. Why do you think this is happening to you? What do you
think are the
causes of your [PROBLEM]?
Note that individuals may identify multiple causes, de-
pending on the facet of the problem they are consid-
ering.

PROMPT FURTHER IF REQUIRED:
Some people may explain their problem as the result of bad
things
that happen in their life, problems with others, a physical
illness, a
spiritual reason, or many other causes.
Focus on the views of members of the individual’s social
network. These may be diverse and vary from the indi-
vidual’s.
5. What do others in your family, your friends, or others in your
com-
munity think is causing your [PROBLEM]?
Page 2 of 3
Reserved.
STRESSORS AND SUPPORTS
(Social Network, Caregivers, Psychosocial Stressors, Religion
and Spirituality, Immigrants and Refugees, Cultural Identity,
Older
Adults, Coping and Help Seeking)
Elicit information on the individual’s life context, focusing

on resources, social supports, and resilience. May
also probe other supports (e.g., from co-workers, from
participation in religion or spirituality).
6. Are there any kinds of support that make your [PROBLEM]
better,
such as support from family, friends, or others?
Focus on stressful aspects of the individual’s environ-
ment. Can also probe, e.g., relationship problems,
difficulties at work or school, or discrimination.
7. Are there any kinds of stresses that make your [PROBLEM]
worse,
such as difficulties with money, or family problems?
ROLE OF CULTURAL IDENTITY
(Cultural Identity, Psychosocial Stressors, Religion and
Spirituality, Immigrants and Refugees, Older Adults, Children
and Adoles-
cents)
Sometimes, aspects of people’s background or identity can
make
their [PROBLEM] better or worse. By background or identity, I
mean, for example, the communities you belong to, the
languages
you speak, where you or your family are from, your race or
ethnic
background, your gender or sexual orientation, or your faith or
reli-
gion.
Ask the individual to reflect on the most salient elements
of his or her cultural identity. Use this information to

tailor questions 9–10 as needed.
8. For you, what are the most important aspects of your
background or
identity?
Elicit aspects of identity that make the problem better or
worse.
Probe as needed (e.g., clinical worsening as a result of
discrimination due to migration status, race/ethnicity,
or sexual orientation).
9. Are there any aspects of your background or identity that
make a
difference to your [PROBLEM]?
Probe as needed (e.g., migration-related problems;
conflict across generations or due to gender roles).
10. Are there any aspects of your background or identity that
are causing
other concerns or difficulties for you?
CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING SELF-COPING AND
PAST HELP SEEKING
SELF-COPING
(Coping and Help Seeking, Religion and Spirituality, Older
Adults, Caregivers, Psychosocial Stressors)
Clarify self-coping for the problem. 11. Sometimes people have
various ways of dealing with problems like
[PROBLEM]. What have you done on your own to cope with
your

[PROBLEM]?
Page 3 of 3
Reserved.
PAST HELP SEEKING
Adults, Caregivers, Psychosocial Stressors, Immigrants and
Refugees,
Social Network, Clinician-Patient Relationship)
Elicit various sources of help (e.g., medical care, mental
health treatment, support groups, work-based coun-
seling, folk healing, religious or spiritual counseling,
other forms of traditional or alternative healing).
Probe as needed (e.g., “What other sources of help
have you used?”).
Clarify the individual’s experience and regard for pre-
vious help.
12. Often, people look for help from many different sources,
including

different kinds of doctors, helpers, or healers. In the past, what
kinds
of treatment, help, advice, or healing have you sought for your
[PROBLEM]?
PROBE IF DOES NOT DESCRIBE USEFULNESS OF HELP
RE-
CEIVED:
What types of help or treatment were most useful? Not useful?
BARRIERS
Adults, Psychosocial Stressors, Immigrants and Refugees,
Social Net-
work, Clinician-Patient Relationship)
Clarify the role of social barriers to help seeking, access
to care, and problems engaging in previous treatment.
Probe details as needed (e.g., “What got in the way?”).
13. Has anything prevented you from getting the help you need?
PROBE AS NEEDED:
For example, money, work or family commitments, stigma or
dis-
crimination, or lack of services that understand your language
or
background?
CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING CURRENT HELP
SEEKING

PREFERENCES
(Social Network, Caregivers, Religion and Spirituality, Older
Adults, Coping and Help Seeking)
Clarify individual’s current perceived needs and ex-
pectations of help, broadly defined.
Probe if individual lists only one source of help (e.g.,
“What other kinds of help would be useful to you at this
time?”).
Now let’s talk some more about the help you need.
14. What kinds of help do you think would be most useful to
you at this
time for your [PROBLEM]?
Focus on the views of the social network regarding help
seeking.
15. Are there other kinds of help that your family, friends, or
other people
have suggested would be helpful for you now?
CLINICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
(Clinician-Patient Relationship, Older Adults)
Elicit possible concerns about the clinic or the clini-
cian-patient relationship, including perceived racism,
language barriers, or cultural differences that may
undermine goodwill, communication, or care delivery.
Probe details as needed (e.g., “In what way?”).

Address possible barriers to care or concerns about the
clinic and the clinician-patient relationship raised pre-
viously.
Sometimes doctors and patients misunderstand each other
because
they come from different backgrounds or have different
expectations.
16. Have you been concerned about this and is there anything
that we
can do to provide you with the care you need?
Cultural Formulation Interview CFI: CULTURAL FACTORS
AFFECTING SELFCOPING AND PAST HELP SEEKING:
Clarify selfcoping for the problem: Cultural Formulation
Interview CFI_2: Clarify the role of social barriers to help
seeking access to care and problems engaging in previous
treatment Probe details as needed eg What got in the way:
Sometimes doctors and patients misunderstand each other
because they come from different backgrounds or have different
expectations 16 Have you been concerned about this and is there
anything that we can do to provide you with the care you need:
Text01: Text02: Text03: Text04: Text05: Text06: Text07:
Text08: Text09: Text10: Text11: Text12: Text13: Text14:
PCN-521 Topic 2: Vargas Case Study
Elizabeth arrives on time with Frank and Heidi for the second
session. Elizabeth appears somewhat frazzled and tells you that
she had just heard from Bob who said he would be “a little late”
because he “lost track of time.” You note Elizabeth’s frustration

which she confirms by saying this is “typical.” She proceeds to
share that she feels “completely disregarded,” especially after
having shared with Bob the night before how important these
sessions are to her. You notice that Heidi seems upset as well
and looks as if she has been crying. You ask her how her day is
going and she tearfully tells you that Frankie tore up her school
paper with the gold star on it. Elizabeth elaborates that Frank
had become angry and ripped up the picture that Heidi was
proudly sharing with her. Frank, who had gone directly to the
Legos, appears oblivious to the others in the room. When you
ask him about his sister’s sadness, he replies, “Who cares? She
always gets gold stars!”
As you were about to further explore these feelings, Bob arrives
stating, “She probably told you I’m always late, but hey, at least
I’m consistent.” You notice Elizabeth’s eye rolling and direct
your attention to the children, asking them about what brought
them to your office. Heidi says, “I’m good but Frankie’s bad at
school, and it makes Mommy and Daddy fight.” Frank, who had
helped himself to one of your books to use as a car ramp argues,
“I hate school. It’s boring and my teacher is mean.” Bob
attributes Frank’s boredom to being “too smart for the second
grade…what do they expect?” Elizabeth responds that they, like
her, expect him to follow rules and be respectful, and suggests
that Bob should share those same expectations. Bob dismisses
Elizabeth’s concerns by saying, “He’s a normal boy, not like all
your friends from work who you say are “creative.”
You notice Elizabeth’s reaction and decide to redirect your
attention to Frank. You ask him what bothers him most about
school, to which he replies, “I get in trouble, then I don’t get to
have all the recess time, then I can’t play soccer because they
already started and they won’t let me play.” You notice Frank’s
interest in sports and probe for more information. You learn that
he is quite athletic and has been asked to join a competitive
youth soccer team that plays on Saturdays and Sundays. You

discover another source of discord when Elizabeth shares that
Bob “feels strongly” that Sundays are to be spent only at church
and with family. Bob confirms that after church on Sundays,
they spend the rest of the day with his parents, siblings, nieces,
and nephews. Elizabeth says that Sunday mornings are the only
time she gets to be by herself and that she typically joins the
family around 1:00. Bob adds, “Apparently Liz needs time to
herself more than she needs God and her family,” and suggests
she should appreciate his family more because “it’s the only
family she has.”
As the session comes to a close, you share your observations of
the family by noting their common goal of wanting to enjoy
family time together. You also suggest that while Frank’s
behavior challenges are concerning, perhaps you could focus
next week on learning more about each parent’s family of origin
in hopes of gaining a better understanding of the couple’s
relationship.
© 2016. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
© 2016. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
157
THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY:
A SHORT THEORETICAL APPROACH
A N A - M A R I A B O L B O R I C I 1
Abstract

The end of the Cold War has generated a series of changes
regarding the national /
international environmental of security, which gradually
developed an pluralistic
terminological approach. This paper try to offer a short
theoretical approach underlying
the gradually tendencies in changes the definitions of security
concept and,
subsequently, the major riscs at the world level.Today, the
security concept it redefines
almost by itself, giving for the first time importance of some
factors such as: economic,
social, cultural, political, environment and others. The paper
describe, also, the military
and non-military dimensions of concept defines security as far
as theoreticians consider
normal to redefines the concept of threats and vulnerabilities,
underlining that the
security of human communities is affected by various factors in
major sectors and also
in the the private lives of people. The concrete threats to
national security and / or
international bodies we face today are: the increasing the
number of immigrants and
refugees, ethnic clashes, the growing importance of cultural and
religious affiliation in
international relations, the environmental degradation, the
integration in different
regional structures etc.Security is the freedom to live and work
in the absence of any
threat and the ability of states and societies to preserve their
distinct identity; providing
in this century the security of the individuals belonging to the
state is a challenge and
this impose some reflections about the ways of managing this
reality.

Keywords: security, security complex, threats, vulnerabilities
Until the outbreak of Second World War the security concept
was related
with the defense term, the present etymology arising from USA,
to which
important amendments were added in subsequent years.For the
analysts the idea of
security before the Cold War period was limited to the pro-
natalist policies but at
the beginning of the 20th century was considered the best ways
to enhance power
and national security. Subsequently in the years that have
marked the Cold War the
security concept has been defined in military terms, being a
reflection of the main
concerns of the two blocks. After war the dominant doctrine
was realism (and
correlative neorealism) focusing on the bipolarity of the system
and the distinction
1 PhDLecturer, Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of
Sociology and
Communication, Department of Social Science and
Communication. E-mail:
[email protected]
ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI
158

between high politics and low politics. Both notions represents
dimensions of
security, on one hand, high politics are referring to the issue of
security seen as one
politico-military and, on the other hand, low politics defining
some environmental
issues, economics, social issues, etc (Dungaciu, 2007, p. 11).
Some analysts emphasize that in the analysis of a complex of
security must
be considered primarily the economic factors in the new global
low politics with an
obviously advance to hard politics, in this regard the economic
interdependence
being seen as a way to connect states at regional and even
global level. The end of
the Cold War has generated a series of changes regarding the
national /
international environmental of security, which gradually
developed an pluralistic
terminological approach, so from that moment the security no
longer represent (nor
for theoreticians and even for practitioners) a political and
military direction of
analysis of a state.In the new context, the security concept it
redefines almost by
itself, giving for the first time importance of some factors such
as: economic,
social, cultural, political, environment, etc. In the first security
studies (belonging
almost exclusively to realistic theoretical school), the security
was a topic with a
military preponderance, directly linked to the national interest
defined in terms of
power; so, they considered that the security concept coincides
with the national

security, another term often used (Duna, 2005, p. 3).
At a brief analysis some definitions of the concept of security
stresses that
these cannot be considered ignoring the historical context in
which they were
developed, whether security issues aim different aspects like:
military, social or
otherwise.In the 50s, John Hertz has launched the concept of
"security dilemma",
advancing his argument based on the premise that "power is a
relative matter by its
very nature, the gain of a state is being necessarily the another's
loss" (Rogojanu,
2007, pp. 72-73).According to Hertz's the security dilemma was
"a notion of
structure in which attempts to self-help of States to ensure their
own security needs
tend, regardless of intentions, lead to an increase in the
insecurity of others, as each
plays his own actions as being defensive, and those of others as
potentially
threatening"(Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 72-73).
In the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (1968) the
national
security is explained as "the ability of a nation to protect its
internal values against
external threats". (Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 7)According to Ian
Bellany (1981) "security,
in itself, is a relative absence of war"; Laurence Martin (1983)
is limited in define
the security considering economic dimension considering that
"security is ensuring
the future well-being" (Sarcinschi, 2005,p.8).

By the Walter Lippmann's view a nation are assured his security
when not
have to sacrifice their interests and is able to maintain and, if
necessary, even by
war; thus "a nation is safe so far as it are not in danger of
having to sacrifice core
value, if it wants to avoid war and maybe, when is provoked to
and maintain them
acquiring al least the victory in a war" (Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 8).
THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY: A SHORT THEORETICAL
APPROACH
159
For Jordan A. and W. Taylor (1981) the national security has a
broader
meaning than protecting against threats of physical values,
implying the protection
of economic and political interests whose loss could threaten
the fundamental and
also the vitality values of the state (Andreescu, 2001, p.
17).Charles Maynes (1989)
thinks that national security it is best defined as "the capacity to
control internal
and external conditions which public opinion of one community
it considers
necessary to enjoy its own autonomy, prosperity and welfare"
(Andreescu, 2001, p.
17).
Barry Buzan (and later the theoreticians of Copenhagen School)
will open
the prospect of a new debate on security, proving that the

definition of Stephen
Walt is now outdated, according to which security must be
reduced to "threats
study, the use and control of the military forces" (Dungaciu,
2007, p. 11).B. Buzan
redefines the concept of threats and vulnerabilities, underlining
that the security of
human communities is affected by various factors in five major
sectors: military,
political, economic, societal, and environment.(Buzan, 1983,
pp. 75-83; see also
Stefanachi 2011, pp. 417-718).
As outlined in the definitions described above the military and
non-military
dimensions of concept defines security as follows: military
security (means all
offensive and defensive military capabilities of states);the
political security (refer
to the organizational stability of the state, the ruling system and
the ideology which
has given legitimacy); the economic and social security (is that
provide access to
resources, sources of funding and markets, necessary to sustain
acceptable levels of
wealth and power of the state and its citizens); the societal
security (refers to the
ability of societies / communities to replicate the traditional
patterns of language,
culture, association, religion and national identity and other
customs); the
environmental security (is highlighted by the measures to
maintain local and global
biosphere as an essential support for the existence of mankind,
for example: access
to natural resources, transboundary air pollution, global

warming, etc.). According
to Barry Buzanthese five sectors do not operate separately from
each other, each
defines a focal point within the security problem and a way of
ordering priorities,
“they are heavily bound to each other”in a strong
network(Buzan, 1983, p. 136).
According toBuzan security is the freedom to live and work in
the absence
of any threat and the ability of states and societies to preserve
their distinct identity
and functional integrity against forces of change, perceived as
hostile, the
providing of the individuals security belonging to the state.The
societal security
(with reference to human communities as a whole) represent, in
the opinion of B.
Buzan, a key factor in the current security equation; the key
aspect of society is that
set of ideas and practices regarding the identity of individuals
as members of a
social group;the society refers to identity, the self-perception of
the community and
individuals who self-identify as members of the community. If
societies are the
central issue of the new security issues, the issue of identity and
migration is
underlying the perception of threats and vulnerabilities.
According to Barry Buzan,
ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI
160

Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde societal insecurity exists when
any communities
define a development or a potentiality as a threat to their
survival as a community
(Rogojanu, 2007, p. 120).
The end of Cold War highlighted new trends as a result of
radical
transformations to which the international system has been
constrained and were
reflected, by default, in the need to redefine and reinterpretation
the concept of
security globally.The obvious fear of the triggering of a nuclear
conflict between
the two great powers was gradually replaced by a series of
concrete threats to
national security and / or international bodies such as: ethnic
clashes, the need for
former communist states to undergo a process of transition, the
increasing the
number of immigrants and refugees, the growing importance of
cultural and
religious affiliation in international relations, the environmental
degradation, the
integration in different regional structures etc.
In the current security studies there is an obvious distinction
between
traditionalist approach of security concept, mainly focused on
the state and military
dimension and the new approach which aims to expand the
security agenda by
analyzing the military and non-military issues. We identified,
also, a predilection
towards widening of this field regarding the definition of

security, analysts such as
Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde (representatives of
the School of
thinking from Copenhagen) resumed the security analysis in the
military, societal,
economic, political and environmental terms, and, also,
proposing as analytical
method an incorporation of traditional principles and at the
same time the
elimination of the artificial borders between security and
economics.
The American analyst Peter Tarnoff considers that, currently,
the economic
field occupies a prominent position in the policy of national
security, the role of
economics being more important than the military sector
(Tarnoff,
2009),According to the representatives of the Copenhagen
School of thinking
dimensions which are important in the security analysis operate
at different levels,
for example: states, groups of individuals (nations), regions or
global contexts; the
security concept can be defined according to the perceived
threat, the source of
threat can be identified either in the aggressive states or in the
negative social
tendencies or in the cultural diversity (this threats can manifest
in a variety of
political contexts or spheres of life: political, economic,
military, cultural,
demographic, environmental, etc.).
Same theorists considered that it useful as security studies to be
centered

on identifying, locating and evaluating of the most important
security measures
initiated by the main actors of social life, believing that in this
way would achieve a
map of contemporary issues of security, each being identified
by four variables:
feature spatial (local, regional, global); the sectoral locating
(military, political,
economic, cultural, environmental); the identity of the main
actor (state, actors of
society, international organizations); the nature of the reference
object (states,
nations, principles, environment) (Sarscinschi, 2005, p. 11).This
type of approach
APPROACH
161
introduces, theoretically and practically, in the security issue
and also in
developing of a new doctrines security, the identity issues and
this was evidenced
at the NATO Summit, Rome (1991) by highlighting of five
dimensions of security:
military, societal, political, economic and environmental
(Dungaciu, 2007, p. 13).
By analyzing the main specific trends of the security
environment since the
beginning of the XXI century and, also, the few definitions of
security examined
above, we can notes the importance of the issue of non-military

dimension of
security in recent years. This does not mean that the military
dimension has lost
from importance, but rather the military and non-military field
are deeply
interrelated.
On 2nd December 2004, the UN Secretary General presented in
front of
this organization a report entitled "A more secure world: our
shared responsibility
projects". The document proposed the implementing of a new
framework of
analysis and to proceed to concrete action by the United Nations
in the security
field, highlighting the need for different conceptual approaches
in the context in
which the concept of security must be correlated with the
concept of collective
security; the report, also, examines and identifies the sources of
threats (both, old
and new) who can affect all states "rich or poor, strong or
weak" (UN High-level
Panel on Threats, 2004).
The document underlines that threats to international security
which
derived from interstate conflicts, degenerating into more
complex problems and so
the states perceive new threats to security and try to answer
them, either
unilaterally or by means of international institutions. The
defining of security
implies the identification of all possible threats and whether
this has been
acknowledged as a vital necessity even after the end of the Cold

War, now it is
important that many international organizations to adjust their
mechanisms to face
the new challenges. Among these organisms, the report stresses
the importance of
restructuring the UN, who represents the main universal
organization what ensure
establishing / restoration of peace and security in the world.
The report submitted to the UN (in December 2004) synthesizes
the need
for to redefine and readjustment of the concept of security in
terms of a plurality of
perspectives, in the context of the 21st century. However, there
are analysts who
warn against excessively enlargement of the area of defining the
concept of
security, while others point out that "security, as a last resort,
has as reference
objects the human individuals and the problems that affect their
daily lives"
(Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 15).
In these circumstances, although most nations of the world
embrace the
values of representative democracy and market economy
offering new
opportunities to achieve sustainable peace, there are many
security challenges both
at nationally and regionally level, and, also, globally.Even if
the former adversaries
from the Cold War are now partners security issues (and not
only), ethnic,
economic, social and environmental tensions continues to cause
instability.Current

ANA-MARIA BOLBORICI
162
security environment is characterized by several tendencies
associated to
geopolitical and military threats which nations and their armed
forces will have to
face in the future.There are some obvious regional threats to the
security, and
regarding this perspective many regional powers work to
increase the material, the
technology and information resources that can improve their
military capabilities.
The UN experts considers that today are obvious two categories
of risks
general applicable to international security: ones soft (examples
of this extreme
poverty, lack of education, unemployment, contagious diseases,
environmental
degradation, religious extremism, human rights violations, etc.)
and hard type
(international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, intra and
inter-state conflicts etc.)(Sarcinschi, 2005, p. 15).Some analysts
share the view that
the 21st century began on 11 September 2001, that imposeda
new way to approach
the issues of security; after that date can no longer talk about
"just a soft dimension
of international security; many authors consider such an
approach obsolete today, a
cultural reconstitution of the political reality; conversely, what

they remark is a
fusion of hard security (e.g. terrorism) and soft security (e.g.
organized crime)"
(Duna, 2005, pp. 12-13).
The argument is that security in the new era is a complex
concept, a
relational phenomenon because can't be understood as national
security (of a state)
without understanding the model of international
interdependence of security and
including the regional one.Regarding to this issue the regional
security complex
theory gives a different perspective on security structure "by
evaluating the relative
balance of powers and mutual relations within and between
regional and global
latest trends.The regional security complex theory distinguish
between the
interaction of global powers that are able to transcend the
distance and interaction
at the subsystem level of small powers whose context is at the
local level. The core
idea of the regional security complex theory is that, from the
most dangerous
threats to the shorter distances, the security interdependence is
normally moderated
by a group of countries which form the security
complex"(Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 30-
31).
We can speak by the existence of a security complex when two
or more
states develop mutual relations, and constantly having an
obvious impact on other
decisions, so as to behave as parts of a whole."The security

complexes exist only
when they have common interests and values, themselves
conceive as being related
to a common set of rules, they participate at work of common
institutions and share
a common culture or civilization" (Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 30-
31)."Today, the Greater
Middle East is a good example for a more comprehensive
analysis mentioning that
in defining the shape and the structure of the security
complexes the cultural and
racial patterns may be an important contributing factor, even
though come only
after the models of perception of security, which are the main
defining factor. This
cultural and racial factor is particularly clear in the Middle
East, a vast area which
extends from Morocco to Oman, from Syria to Somalia. In this
area, the idea of the
APPROACH
163
Arab nation and the transnational political force of Islamism are
combined to create
a strong regional political arena. Both, the arab nationalism and
Islamism
awakened the identity of the regional states and legitimize an
unusual high degree
of interpretation of security" (Rogojanu, 2007, pp. 57-58).
References:

Andreescu, A. (2001). “Obiective prioritare ale realizării
securităţii naţionale în domeniul
ordinii publice”. In Securitatea naţională la început de secol
XXI, 17-22. Cercul militar
național: StudiiStrategice de Securitate.
Buzan, Barry. 1983. People, States, and Fear: The National
Security Problem in
International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
Dungaciu, D. (2007). Organizaţii de Securitate [Security
Organizations]. Universitateadin
Bucureşti: Facultatea de Sociologie şi Asistenţă Socială.
Duna, D. (2005). Raport de cercetare – Grant: Securitatea
europeană în contextual
globalizării relaţiilor internaţionale. Revista de Politica Ştiinţei
şi Scientometrie, Special
Number: 1582-1218. [Universitatea „Babeş-Bolyai” din Cluj-
Napoca].
Rogojanu, D.-C. (2007). Teoria complexului regional de
securitate: complexul de
securitate european. Iaşi : Lumen.
Sarcinschi, A. (2005). Elemente noi în studiul securităţii
naţionale şi internaţionale.
Bucureşti: Universitatea Naţională de Apărare.
Tarnoff, Peter, and Kreisler, Harry. (2000). Making Foreign
Policy in a Democracy:
Conversations with Peter Tarnoff. In Conversations with
History Series, Institute of
International Studies.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Tarnoff/tarnoff-

con0.html.
Accessed: 16 octombrie 2016.
United Nations. (2004). UN High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change, A more
secure world: our shared responsibility. UN doc. A/59/565, 2
December 2004.
http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/ abstract/10/3/435.
Accessed: 2 august 2008.
Copyright of Scientific Annals of 'Alexandru Ioan Cuza'
University of Iasi: Political Science
is the property of Alexandru Ioan Cuza University and its
content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Application 2 – Annotated BibliographyAs part of your doctoral s.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Application 2 – Annotated BibliographyAs part of your doctoral s.docx

Similar to Application 2 – Annotated BibliographyAs part of your doctoral s.docx (11)

More from justine1simpson78276

More from justine1simpson78276 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Application 2 – Annotated BibliographyAs part of your doctoral s.docx