The belief that the state should be the primary referent object of security studies has become outdated for many. With the failure of the Westphalian system in the late 20th century, in which states were the main institutional agents, an international debate arose over questions of sovereignty and the state became less relevant as the main object of reference . The world was changing and, as Dr. Javier Solana, NATO Secretary General said in 1998, humanity and democracy, two principles at the forefront of international debate and essentially unrelated to the original Westphalian system , now serve as guidelines in the development of a new international system. a political order better adapted to the realities and security challenges of today. The Westphalian system essentially gave the international community an effective method for dividing territory and recognizing state borders. In the Westphalian system, the goals of the state and what were considered to be in the best national interest were considered to exceed the needs of individual citizens or groups. However, in the interconnected world we live in today and with the advent of technologies connecting people across the world with the click of a button, traditional identities and the roles of states as the primary object of reference in safety studies have changed. failed. Non-traditional security threats have emerged in recent decades and are receiving more and more attention and importance compared to some traditional security threats, because they threaten the population and the nation itself, as opposed to traditional threats directed solely against the State. This essay will discuss the debate over traditional and non-traditional security threats as seen in the schools of realism and liberation...... middle of article...... Studies, Washington, District of Columbia.2008. pp 10. Retrieved December 6, 2011E, Carr. “The Twenty Years Crisis 1919-1939: Introduction to the Study of International Relations”. New York: Harper-Collins, 1964. pp. 161iBid. pp. 153T, Expedition. “From Offensive Realism to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China’s Security Strategy.” Paper No. 3. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technical University, Singapore. 2007.pp. 31. Accessed December 7, 2011 < http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/SSIS/SSIS003.pdf>S, Craig. “Chinese Perceptions of Traditional and Nontraditional Security Threats.” Institute for Strategic Studies, US Army. March 2007. pp. 101. Accessed December 7, 2011 < http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub765.pdf>iBid.