A Conceptual Framework on Bhutan’s Environmental Security as a Small State in South Asia in the Entire National Security Debate

Jatin Mech^1, and Abhijit Bhuyan²

¹Furkating College, Golaghat (Assam), India

²Kkhsou, Guwahati (Assam), India

Cite this paper:
Jatin Mech and Abhijit Bhuyan. A Conceptual Framework on Bhutan’s Environmental Security as a Small State in South Asia in the Entire National Security Debate. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 2022; 10(2):54-59. doi: 10.12691/aees-10-2-4

Abstract

The small states enjoy equal status with other states. But due to the hierarchical nature of power in the regional system, the security interests and requirements of these states are not similar to the big and powerful states in global politics. The factors that broadly affect the security of such small states are their size, sparse population, limited resource base, lack of cohesion of the population, short of democratic structure, proximity to big neighbors, and threats to their ecology. The factor impinge on the ability of these states is to make itself secure and provide security to its citizen. It is impossible for them to obtain security by using their own capabilities. They have to rely on assistance from neighbours and other states for their security matters. It thus requires substantial assistance and support provided both on a bilateral basis and multilaterally through international institutions. Therefore, a new conceptual framework is urgently needed to study the non-traditional security issues of these small states.

Keywords:
environment security national security security issues small states South Asia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Walter Lippman, U.S Foreign policy, London, Humish Hamilton 1943, p.32.
[2]	Quated in Dietrich Fisher, Nonmilitary Aspect of Security: A System Approach, UNIDIR, Darthmouth, 1995, pp. 9-10.
[3]	Quated in Dietrich Fisher, Nonmilitary Aspect of Security: A System Approach, UNIDIR, Darthmouth, 1995, pp. 10.
[4]	UNDP, Human development Report, New York: United Nation Development programme, 1994.p.22.
[5]	Fisher, Nonmilitary Aspect of Security, n. 6, p.151
[6]	Raymond Cohen, Threat Perception in International Crisis, University of Wisconsin, 1990, pp.79-80.
[7]	John Chapman, R. Drifte and ITM Grow, Japan’s Quest for Comprehensive Security, London, Frances Pinter, 1983, p. 14.
[8]	As cited in Dipankar Banerjee(ed.) Comprehensive and Cooperative Security in South Asia, New Delhi, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies 1998,p.247.
[9]	Norman Myer, the Environment Dimension to Security Issues, the Environmentalist, Vol. 6, winter 1986, p. 253.
[10]	James Baker, Diplomacy for the Environment, address before the National Governors Association, 26 February 1990, Washington D.C. reprinted in Current Policy no. 1254, February 1990.
[11]	For details see, NarottamGaan, Environmental and National Security, New Delhi, South Asian Publishers, 2000, p. 15.
[12]	Roger E. Kasperson et. at.,” Critical Environmental Regions: Concepts, Distinctions, and issues” in Jeanne X., Roger E. Kaspersion, and B.L. turner, eds., Regions at risk: comparisons of Threatened Environment, Tokyo, 1995.
[13]	This distinction is made by Dietrich Fisher, Non-Military Aspect of Security: A System Approach,Aldeshot,1993,pp21
[14]	The Commonwealth and Climate Change. Common wealth Secretariat Marlborough House. Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HX, United Kingdom.