The question of security has long been a concern in international relations. It has been argued that there is no common concept of security and disagreement in the normative and methodological approach. In its simplest form, the core of security is survival, and therefore the absence of threat. In terms of international relations, the state has been the main object of reference in matters of security. Arnold Wolfers proposed the definition of security as "(security), in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that these values ​​will be attacked." In the traditional approach, security threats arise from a hard power source and are framed by a national security paradigm. It has been argued that security is only about power politics and military action. Proponents of the traditional approach argue that international relations are dominated by realist perception. Anarchy in international relations forces states to follow a path of self-protection and face a security dilemma. External physical threats constitute the main source of insecurity for the State. For traditionalists, the protection of national borders and sovereignty is at the heart of security. In his seminal article “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” Stephen Walt argues that the field of security studies is “the phenomenon of war.” For Walt, security is rightly concerned with analyzing the impact of the use of force on individuals, societies and the state. From this perspective, military power was used as an instrument of foreign policy, political propaganda and for economic purposes. The old approach to security dominated the Cold War period. Meanwhile, the global military c...... middle of paper ...... question of the referent object of security. However, the link that unites the paradigm is the belief that the conceptualization and definition of security in international relations requires a broad approach. Barry Buzan is at the forefront of this paradigm shift. In his book People, State and Fear, Buzan argues that in addition to the traditional political and military dimensions, economic, societal and environmental dimensions are at the heart of security. The five dimensions of Buzan's security concept create a complex synthesis of security concerns. Furthermore, Buzan offers a holistic approach because he argues that defining a particular referent object is not productive. The choice of a referent object depends on the perception of the question analyzed. In this context, the referent object can be the individual, the State or the international system..