|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Security Issues
Reference:
Massunov, S.L. (2024). Criticism of modern approaches to the interpretation of the concept of "threat": a detailed overview of the shortcomings of the author's ideas. Security Issues, 4, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7543.2024.4.72841
Criticism of modern approaches to the interpretation of the concept of "threat": a detailed overview of the shortcomings of the author's ideas
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7543.2024.4.72841EDN: BNFNIHReceived: 24-12-2024Published: 17-01-2025Abstract: Such a new scientific field as the theory of security, which is currently being developed, is based on a number of original concepts, including threat, challenge, risk, danger, and safety. How-ever, their content in various publications is far from unambiguously determined. In the presented work, as a result of the analysis of a wide list of existing scientific papers, a number of significant disadvantages of the interpretations of one of the cornerstone concepts of security theory, threats, proposed by various authors, are shown. The shortcomings of existing approaches to the definition of the considered product were iden-tified on the basis of the application of several methodological provisions, including methods of comparative analysis, laws of logic and requirements of terminology. As a result of the analysis carried out in the work, it is shown that among the main misconcep-tions when interpreting a threat are: – identification with danger, – representation as a set of conditions and factors that create danger, – as well as definition as a some situation (state), phenomenon, process or factor that can cause negative changes anywhere. In contrast to the presented approaches, it is emphasized that everything that can cause possible negative consequences should be considered not the threat itself, but its source. Attention is drawn to the fact that the authors of only two works adhere to the most reliable interpretation of the threat as the possibility of harm as a result of the object's influence on someone/something. In addition, some articles provide incomplete formulations of the threat, taking into account only one of its components - real or potential, which from the point of view of methodological principles should also be considered unacceptable. Keywords: threat, concept, interpretation, analysis, criticism, publications, shortcomings, inaccuracy, error, unacceptableThis article is automatically translated. Introduction In a previously published article [1], the author examines in some detail the features of the very concept of "threat" and its distinctive characteristics. Among the latter, two mandatory features are emphasized – the presence of harm as a result of object–subject interactions (of someone/something with someone/something) and the potentiality of such interactions. Accordingly, in the general case, a threat is defined as the intention (possibility) of causing harm as a result of subject–object relations. When it comes to technical disciplines, only the influence of an object on someone/ something is considered and, accordingly, not the intention should be taken into account, but only the possibility of harmful consequences. In addition, the article highlights two main forms of threat – potential and real, the latter of which is divided into explicit and hidden (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The main forms of the concept of "threat" However, despite the fact that this term is widely used in everyday life, legal practice, regulatory documents, scientific papers, despite its obvious simplicity and theoretical certainty, attempts to revise its substantive basis do not stop in the scientific community. In this regard, based on the analysis of a wide list of existing scientific publications, this paper shows the characteristic disadvantages of some of the proposed approaches to its interpretation. Inaccurate definitions of the threat Starting to consider this issue, it should be noted that there are a significant number of scientific papers that examine in some detail both the concept of "threat" and its relationship to related terms such as challenge, danger, and risk. Among the presented works, the publications of M. F. Gatsko [2, 3], M. Y. Zelenkov [4, 5], I. A. Sushkova [6], I. B. Kardashova [7], A.V.Brega [8], A. N. Litvinenko, L. K. Samoilova [9], I. V. Radikova [10, 11], O. N. Lopachuk [12], A. B. Feonicheva, K. Y. Meleshina [13], A. N. Mikhailenko, S. V. Gruzdova [14], A.V. Nichikova [15]. However, as the analysis of the proposed formulations of the concept of threat has shown, a small number of authors adhere to the interpretation recommended by us. From our point of view, the most correct approach is found in two publications.: –in the book "Economic Security" edited by N. V. Manokhina, the threat is presented as "a real or potential possibility of destructive factors and prerequisites for the realization of financial interests that can provoke direct or indirect damage to the company" [16]; – and in the National Security Concept of the Republic of Belarus, a threat to national security is defined as "a potential or real possibility of harming the national interests of the Republic of Belarus" [17]. These publications reflect two of its main characteristics – the possibility of exposure and the presence of harmful effects as a result of exposure. A number of publications have made some inaccuracies in disclosing the nature of the threat. For example, in the following works, the term is presented only through an existing (real, direct, indirect) possibility, although, as shown above, the latter can be any – not only real, but also potential: – The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 defined a threat to national security as "the direct or indirect possibility of harming constitutional rights, freedoms, decent quality and standard of living of citizens, sovereignty and territorial integrity, sustainable development of the Russian Federation, defense and security of the state" [18]. A little later, Kardashova I. B., Bakushev V. V. and Filchikov A. A., Stremoukhov A. A. and Lungu A. S., and V. V. Gafner used this formulation in his works [7, 19-21]; – Tsyglakova E. A. presented the threat as "a real possibility of destructive changes caused by external factors in relation to objects, subjects, and states that are significant and valuable to society and the individual" [22]; – Krutikov V. K., Dorozhkina T. V., Kostina O. I., Yakunina M. V. proposed to consider "an objectively existing possibility of negative impact on a social organism as an economic threat, as a result of which any damage may be caused to it, harm that worsens its condition, giving its development undesirable dynamics or parameters" [23]; – Pirumov V. S. interprets a threat as "an objectively existing opportunity to cause any damage to an individual, society, or the state" [24]; – M. Y. Zelenkov suggests understanding a threat as "a direct or indirect possibility of causing damage to security facilities" [5]. In addition to the noted drawback, the theoretically illiterate expression "security facilities" is used in this interpretation. Since security is a property of an object's state, only the expression "object security" is acceptable, but not the other way around. A number of other authors, on the contrary, believe that a threat is only a potential opportunity without taking into account its actual form, which is also not a completely accurate representation. For example, in V. I. Yarochkin's so-called securitology, a threat to state security is proposed to be interpreted as "the possibility of such a development of events that will create (or creates) the danger to the existence of the state, its political and economic independence" [25]. In addition, in this case, one term (security threat) is disclosed through another, opposite in meaning (creating danger), the meaning of which is not disclosed. As a result, the logical law of sufficient reason and one of the requirements of terminology (absence of signs of negation) are violated; – according to A. N. Bondaruk, V. E. Dukhov, K. Ya. Petrova, I. N. Chervyakov, "a threat is the potential for damage to economic entities from certain factors of the internal and external environment" [26]; – in the monograph, Domareva V. V. recommends interpreting "a threat to information security as a potential violation of the basic qualitative characteristics (properties) of information during its processing by technical means: confidentiality, integrity, accessibility" [27]; – Nichikov A.V. suggests defining a threat "as a potential opportunity to reduce the ability of an object to perform its main function of producing products due to the impact of intruders on the facility's equipment" [15]. The given examples of incomplete formulations of the "threat", which take into account only one of its components – real or potential, from the point of view of the criteria of theoretical consistency (accuracy and concreteness), despite the interpretation being similar in meaning, should nevertheless be considered unacceptable. Incorrect interpretation of the threat The most common mistake in identifying a threat is to identify it with danger. It should be borne in mind that according to the provisions of terminology, any scientific term must meet four basic requirements – accuracy, brevity, concreteness and monosemanticism. Therefore, the terms "threat" and "danger" cannot denote the same domain of definition, be equivalent, characterize the same concept. Accordingly, it is incorrect to label the threat as: – immediate danger. Among other things, with this approach, danger is often presented as a phenomenon, process, or factor, which can be considered a gross methodological error, since it is theoretically correct to consider it a property of the subject, such as stability, reliability, cost-effectiveness, etc. That is, if we are talking about danger, then there must be an object that is endowed with this feature: the danger of someone or something - the danger of urban traffic, nuclear energy, a criminal situation, a hurricane, a criminal who escaped from prison, etc. The use of the very word "danger" in the form of an object (for example, someone is in danger or such a definition of a threat as "danger entailing real losses" [32]) is unacceptable. Among the main publications of the authors declaring a similar approach to the concept of threat, one can note the works of Mikhailenko A. N., Gruzdov S. V. [14], Yarochkin V. I. [25], Manilov V. L. [28], Lutsenko E. V., Potylitsina N. M. [29], Bocharov B. V., Korotkov V. Yu., Lutsenko E. V. [30], Pyatietova V. V. [31], Medvedeva E. V. [32], Grazhdankina A. I. [33], Derbina E. A. [34], Sapronova V. V. [35], Gubanova V. M., Mikhailova L. A., Solomina V. P. [36], Gafner V. V., Petrova S. V., Zabara L. I. [37], Krivorotova V. V., Kaliny A.V., Eriashvili N. D. [38], Kiiko M. Yu. [39]. For example, V. L. Manilov believes that a threat is "an immediate danger of harming vital national interests ..." [28]. A somewhat peculiar approach is described in the article by Mikhailenko A. N., Gruzdov S. V., where the threat is presented as a "complex multidimensional danger" [14]. It should be noted that, on the one hand, the term in question is defined through the concept of danger, on the other hand, the latter is interpreted as a phenomenon, process or factor, which, as it was emphasized, is unacceptable. Moreover, danger, among other things, means something complex (namely, encompassing a group of phenomena) multidimensional (taking into account different aspects of phenomena - in fact, a group of their properties), which, from our point of view, is completely unacceptable for scientific analysis. Another original definition is given in the work of M. Kiiko, according to which threat means not just danger, but its "dynamic increase" [39]. The phrase "dynamic growth" is contradictory in its meaning. The word "dynamic" means "characterizing motion", that is, movement in space over time. Therefore, the presented wording can mean either an increase in danger in motion, or an increase in moving danger. Both are incongruous in meaning, respectively, the proposed definition is negligible.; – possible danger. Examples of incorrect definition of threat in this case occur in the works of Glushko O. A. [41], Vishnyakov Ya. D., Radaev N. N. [42], Surova L. V. [43], as well as in dictionaries of the Russian language by various authors [40]. For example, Glushko O. A. has it as "a possible danger that can lead to adverse consequences" [41], in the dictionary of the Russian language Ushakov D. N. – "possible danger", etc. Moreover, here, as in the previous case, the danger is presented as some phenomenon, process or factor, which is unacceptable. – a form of danger. Since, as mentioned above, danger is a property of an object, it is theoretically absurd to talk about any of its forms. Publications with a similar theoretical approach have been published by Brega A.V. [5], Sushkova I. A. [6], Litvinenko A. N., Samoilova L. K. [9], Radikov I. V. [10, 11], Lopachuk O. N. [12], Sergunina A. A. [44]; Gerasimova A. V. [46], Tsukanova V. X. [47], Baranova N. A. [48], Sergeeva I. A., Sergeeva A. Yu. [49], Zollera S. V. [50], Chernyavskoy N. M. [53], Gerasimova P. A. [54], Galuzina A. F. [55], Zelenkova M. Yu. [56], Pershina A. A. [57], Kravchuk A. A. [58], Kortunova S. V. [59], Barabin V. V. [60]; Markova A. A. [61], as well as in the monograph of the Plekhanov Russian Academy of Economics (ed. Oleinikova E. A.) [45], in the textbooks "Economic and National Security" (ed. Oleinikova E. A.) [51] and "Economic Security" (ed. Goncharenko L. P.) [52]. For example, in Sushkova I. A. [6] and Lopachuk O. N. [12], a threat is "the most specific and immediate form of danger", in Baranov N. A. it is "the most specific, immediate and targeted form of danger" [48], etc. Among the definitions proposed by these authors, attention can be drawn to a number of significant inaccuracies.: – in some works [33, 34, 50-53, 60, 61] The concept of "actualized danger" is introduced. Actualization involves the transfer of something from a potential to a real state. That is, as stated in [53], in this case it is a danger "at the stage of transition from possibility to reality." However, danger, as mentioned above, is a property of an object, therefore it cannot be at any stage of transition from possibility to reality, that is, it manifests itself through any stages. The logic in this case is very simple – an object or phenomenon is either dangerous to someone or something, or not; – the same arguments can be brought to the term "truncated danger" used by A. F. Galuzin in the article [55], as a danger taken "in its final, real, marginal and obviously harmful development." In addition, the very name "truncated" is incongruous in meaning – who and how can cut something off from danger? Similarly, his further explanation is a complete absurdity: "the real, ultimate and harmful development of danger" is nonsense (what does it mean, from the point of view of common sense, the development of danger? If there is a harmful danger, then there must be a non–harmful one - and what is it? Etc.); – in the article [54] Gerasimov P. A. introduces the concept of "danger passing into the practical plane". This phrase seems unacceptable, since the property cannot be in any planes or pass into any planes.; – Pershin A. A. used the expression "danger emanating from phenomena (object)", which is more typical for literary or vernacular speech, but is completely unsuitable for scientific stylistics [57]. The fact is that it is theoretically correct to talk about the danger of phenomena and objects, but not about the danger emanating from them, since the latter is a property of; – a number of authors [44, 45, 47, 49-52] could not unambiguously formulate the term threat and, along with equating it with danger, used the second formulation, defining the threat through "a set of conditions and factors that create danger." From a scientific point of view, this is unacceptable - any concept must be characterized unambiguously. The second characteristic inaccuracy in defining the term threat is its representation as a set of conditions and factors that pose a danger to someone or something. However, a combination of conditions and factors characterizes such a concept as a "situation" or "condition", and if the conditions and factors are dangerous, then such a combination should be defined as a "dangerous situation" or "dangerous condition", but not a "threat". A similar lack of definition is found in the works of Bocharov B. V., Korotkov V. Yu., Lutsenko E. V. [30], Kobysheva M. S., Fedotov A.V., Kobyshev K. I. [62], "Life safety" Babaytsev I. V., Mastryukov B. S., Medvedev V. T. and others [63], Gafner V. V., Petrova S. V., Zabara L. I. [37]; Krivorotova V. V., Kalina A.V., Eriashvili N. D. [38]; in the Law of the Russian Federation "On Safety" of 1992 [64]; "Fundamentals of life safety" Tyagunova G. V., Volkova A. A., Barysheva E. E. et al. [65]; Doroshenko A. A. [66]; "General Theory of National Security" ed. Prokhozheva A. A. [67]; "Economics and organization of security of economic entities" Guseva V. S. et al. [68]; Mamonova V. V. [69]; Sipok R.P. [70]; Fomina S. A. [71]; Krotova M. I., Muntiyana V. I. [72], "Fundamentals of national security" ed . Mikhailova L. A. [73], Glushko O. A. [41]; Sergunina A. A. [44]; Sergeeva I. A., Sergeeva A. Yu. [49]; "Fundamentals of Economic Security" ed. Oleinikova E. A. [45]; Zoller S. V. [50]; "Economic and National Security" ed. Oleinikova E. A. [51]; "Economic security" ed. Goncharenko L. P. [52], Korzhova G. V. [74], Pronyaeva L. I., Fedotenkova O. A. [75], Odintsovo N. A., Mammadova D. M. [76], Barikaeva E. N., Saradzheva O. V. [77], Arefieva O. V., Kuzenko T. B. [78], Lanzman E. N. [79]. For example, according to Bocharov B. V., Korotkov V. Yu., Lutsenko E. V., a threat to national security is "a set of conditions and factors that hinder the realization of national interests, as well as endangering national values and the national way of life" [30], Babaytsev I. V., Mastryukov B. S., Medvedev V. T., and others. security is "a set of conditions and factors that pose a threat to the vital interests of an individual, society and the state" [63], etc. In some publications, the so-called set of conditions and factors is directly designated as a condition or situation that creates danger. For example, in B. A. Kurinov's monograph, a threat is defined as "the creation of a dangerous environment, a certain state in which specific harmful consequences may yet occur" [80]. The resulting incorrectness is similar to the previous case – the concept of a threat should be different from the concept of a dangerous situation (condition). As the third characteristic feature of erroneous ideas about the essence of the threat, it can be noted that it is formulated in the form of a certain situation (state) with subsequent negative consequences. It should be emphasized that negative consequences are ultimately assessed by indicators of the harm caused. Therefore, on the one hand, since it is these situations (states) that can create an undesirable result, they should be considered sources of some threats, but not the threats themselves. On the other hand, since situations (states) are associated with harmful consequences, this feature should be considered their characteristic, and situations (states) should be defined as harmful (malicious) by analogy with the dangerous ones in the above example. Among the authors of this approach, Kazantsev S. V., Karpov V. V. [81], Feonicheva A. B., Meleshina K. Yu. [13], Protsenko S. V. [83], Mosov S. P., Saliy S. M., Moldakhanova G., Arapov M. K. [84], Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan [82], Strategies of economic security of the Russian Federation until 2030 [85]. For example, in an article by S. V. Kazantsev and V. V. Karpov, a threat to an object is "a situation leading to a deterioration of the situation at this facility" [81], or in the Strategy of Economic Security of the Russian Federation until 2030, the threat to economic security is formulated as "a set of conditions and factors that create a direct or indirect possibility of harming the national interests of the Russian Federation." in the economic sphere" [85]. Situations, a combination of conditions and factors represent the source of the threat, but not the threat itself. The fourth and final group of misconceptions about the concept of "threat" can include a number of quite numerous authors who present it as a phenomenon, process or factor that can cause negative changes somewhere. In contrast to this point of view, it should be noted that a phenomenon (factor, process), as such, can only create a threat – that is, physically threaten, therefore they represent a source of threat, but not the threat itself. Scientific publications with this view include articles by Lopachuk O. N. [12], Minyailenko N. N., Lungu A. S. [86], Gupanova E. Yu. [87], Panteleeva T. A. [88], Usova E. O., Bulygin Z. S. [89], Rasskazov I. A. [90], Gaponenko V. F., Bespalko A. L., Vlaskova A. S. [91]; Suglobova A. E., Khmeleva S. A., Orlova E. A. [92], Gerasimova K. B., Nesolenova G. F. [93], Gatchina Yu. A., Sukhostata V. V., Kurakina A. S., Donetskoy Yu. V. [94], Kobysheva M. S., Volodina A. A., Ivanova M. V., Feofilova T. Yu., Manaseryan T. M. [95], Tambovtseva V. L. [96], Yarochkina V. I. [97], Serebryakova T. Yu., Timofeeva N. Yu. [98], Firsova O. A. [99], Sosnina A. S., Prygunova P. Ya. [100], Zaplatinsky V. [101], Chekmareva V. V. [102]. An example is the formulation by Minyailenko N. N., Lungu A. S., according to which a threat to security is "phenomena and actions that make it difficult or impossible to realize the vital interests of an individual, society and the state" [86], or Sosnina A. S., Prygunova P.Ya., where the threat is formulated as "potentially possible or real events, processes, circumstances, or actions of intruders capable of causing moral, physical, or material damage" [100]. In both the first and second examples, "phenomena, actions, events, processes, circumstances" represent the sources of the threat, but not the threat itself. To summarize, for clarity, incorrect approaches to defining the essence of the concept of threat, identified as a result of the analysis of existing scientific publications, can be presented in the form of a diagram in Fig. 2.
Conclusion An analysis of a wide list of existing scientific publications on the interpretation of the concept of "threat" has revealed a number of significant shortcomings in the proposed formulations. The most common inaccuracy, as it turned out, is the identification of a threat with a danger (possible, immediate, or some form of it). Equally erroneous are cases of presenting a threat in the form of a set of conditions and factors that pose a danger to someone/ something, as well as when it is defined as a certain situation (condition) with subsequent negative consequences or as some phenomenon, process or factor that can cause negative changes somewhere. In contrast to the presented approaches, it is necessary to emphasize that everything that can cause possible negative consequences (phenomena, factors, processes, conditions, situations) should be considered not the threat itself, but its source. At the same time, the authors of only two works adhere to the most reliable interpretation of the "threat" as the possibility of harm caused by the object's influence on someone/something - a book on economic security edited by N.V. Manokhina and the national security concept of the Republic of Belarus. In addition, a number of articles contain incomplete formulations of the "threat" that take into account only one of its components – real or potential, which from a scientific point of view (accuracy, brevity, concreteness and monosemanticism) should nevertheless be considered unacceptable. (The article was prepared as part of the research project "Scientific foundations of energy Transition research at the regional level" (No. 124013000621-4)) References
1. Massunov, S. L.(2023). Criticism of modern approaches to the interpretation of the concept of «threat» in technical disciplines: elements of theoretical absurdity of some researchers' ideas. Security Issues, 4, 78-90.
2. Gatsko, M. F. (1997). On the relationship between the concepts of «threat» and «danger». Observer, 7(90), 24-29. 3. Gatsko, M. F. (2014). Fundamentals of National Security. Noginsk: Publication of the Noginsk branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and GS. 4. Zelenkov, M. Y. (2013). Theoretical and methodological problems of the theory of national security of the Russian Federation [Monograph]. Moscow: Law Institute of the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers. 5. Zelenkov, M. Y. (2016). Fundamentals of the theory of national security. Moscow: UNITY. 6. Sushkova, I. A. (2018). Correlation and interrelation of the concepts of «challenge», «danger», «threat», «risk». Economic security and quality, 4(33), 10-15. 7. Kardashova, I. B. (2019). Fundamentals of the theory of national security. Moscow: Yurayt. 8. Brega, A.V. (2010). Risk in the system of categories characterizing the antithesis of national security. All-Russian Scientific Conference «National Security: scientific and state management content», (Moscow, December 4, 2009): proceedings of the conference. Moscow: Association of Independent Experts «Center for the Study of Crisis Society», 737-752. 9. Litvinenko, A. N., & Samoilova, L. K. (2017). Approaches to the classification of threats to the economic security of public-territorial education. Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 6, 253-262. 10. Radikov, I. V. Theory and policy of national security [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from http://spbu.ru/teoriya_i_politika_nacionalnoy_bezopasnosti_2.pdf 11. Radikov, I. V. (2004). Politics and National Security. St. Petersburg: Asterion. 12. Lopachuk, O. N. (2021). The categories of «challenge», «threat», «danger» and «risk» in the theory of environmental safety. Bulletin of the Belarusian State University of Economics, 6, 47-57. 13. Feonychev, A. B., & Meleshin, K. Yu. (2021). Theoretical and methodological features of the analysis of basic concepts of the modern theory of national security. Managerial consulting, 1, 32-42. 14. Mikhailenko, A. N., & Gruzdov, S. V. (2011). Concepts of threat and challenge to national security: on the example of Russia's accession to the WTO. Observer, 2, 57-63. 15. Nichikov, A.V. (2008). List of threats: from general to particular. A methodical approach to the formation of lists of threats to protected objects. Security systems, 2, 230-235. 16. Popov, M. V., Manokhina, N. V., Kolyadin, N. P., Zhadan, I. E., Mamayeva, L. N., Katkova, M. A., … & Miroshnichenko, N. V. (2023). Economic security. Moscow: Scientific and publishing center INFRA-M. 17. The National Security Concept of the Republic of Belarus. The military doctrine of the Republic of Belarus. (2024). Minsk: National Legal Information Center of the Republic of Belarus. 18. The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation. (2024). Moscow: NIC INFRA-M. 19. Bakushev, V. V., & Filchakov, A. A. (2010). Evolutionary adjustments of the national security paradigm. State and municipal administration. The scientific notes of SKAGGS, 1, 107-119. 20. Lungu, A. S., & Stremoukhov, A. A. (2012). Internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as an element of the national security system of the Russian Federation. Military Law Journal, 4, 4-7. 21. Gafner, V. V. (2016). Fundamentals of life safety: a conceptual and terminological dictionary. Moscow: FLINTА; Nauka. 22. Tsyglakova, E. A. (2009). Sociology of security. Balashov: Nikolaev. 23. Krutikov, V. K., Dorozhkina, T. V., Kostina O. I., & Yakunina M. V. (2017). Economic security. Kaluga: Eidos. 24. Pirumov, B. C. (1993). Some aspects of the methodology of the study of the problems of national security of Russia in modern conditions. Geopolitics and security, 1, 7-16. 25. Yarochkin, V. I. (2000). Securitology: The science of life safety. Moscow: Axis-89. 26. Bondarchuk, A. N., Dukhov, V. E., Petrova, K. Ya., & Chervyakov, I. N. (2003). Fundamentals of economic security. Kharkiv: Publishing House of the National The University of Internal Affairs. 27. Domarev, V. V. (2004). Information technology security. A systematic approach. Kiev: LLC "TID DS". 28. Manilov, V. L. (1996). Threats to Russia's national security. Military thought, 1, 7-17. 29. Lutsenko, E. V., & Potylitsyna, N. M. (2006). Theoretical foundations of human instability. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafiev. 30. Bocharov, B. V., Korotkov, V. Y., & Lutsenko, E. V. (2008). Fundamentals of National Security. Krasnoyarsk: KSPU named after V. P. Astafiev. 31. Pyatietov, V. V. (2009). «Security», «security threat», «emergency situation»: some problems of the correlation of concepts. Bulletin of the Samara State Aerospace University the name of the Academician S. P. Korolev (National Research University), 1, 201-206. 32. Medvedev, E. V. (2012). «Danger» as a legal category. The Russian justice system, 12, 64-66. 33. Grazhdankin, A. I. (2002). Danger and safety. Occupational safety in industry, 9, 41-43. 34. Derbin, E. A. (2010). Challenges and threats to the national security of the Russian Federation in the information sphere. All-Russian Scientific Conference «National security: scientific and state management content», (Moscow, December 4, 2009): proceedings of the conference. Center for Problem Analysis and Public Management Design, 38-55. Moscow: Scientific expert. 35. Sapronov, V. V. (2007). Ideas for a general theory of security. OBZH. The basics of life safety, 1, 46-52. 36. Gubanov, V. M., Mikhailov, L. A., & Solomin, V. P. (2007). Social emergencies and protection from them. Moscow: Publishing house «Drofa». 37. Gafner, V. V., Petrov, S. V., & Zabara, L. I. (2010). Social hazards and protection from them. Yekaterinburg: State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education «Ural State Pedagogical University». 38. Krivorotov, V. V., Kalina, A.V., & Eriashvili, N. D. (2015). Economic security of the state and regions. Moscow: UNITY-DANA. 39. Kiiko, M. Y. (2013). Modern aspects of scientific interpretations of threats to national security. Regional problems of economic transformation, 1(35), 390-400. 40. Ushakov, D. N. (2019). Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Standard. 41. Glushko, O. A. (2013). Ecological crisis and legal problems of its overcoming. KubGAU Scientific Journal, 91, 1812-1822. 42. Vishnyakov, Ya. D., & Radaev, N. N. (2008). General theory of risks. 2nd ed. revised. Moscow: Publishing center «Academy». 43. Surova, L. V. (2013). Theoretical foundations of hazard research. Bulletin of the Kazan Energy University, 2(17), 50-63. 44. Sergunin, A. A. (2005). International security: new approaches and concepts. Political studies, 6, 126-137. 45. Vidyapin, V. I. [et al.]. (1997). Base climateconomical safety: (state, region, enterprise, person). Plekhanov Russian Academy of Economics. (Edited by E. A. Oleinikov). Moscow: Business School «Intel-synthesis». 46. Gerasimov, A.V. (2018). The phenomenon of security in socio-philosophical discourse. Philosophical School, 4, 23-31. 47. Tsukanov, V. X. (2007). Economic security: the essence, factors of influence and methods of ensuring. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk House of Printing. 48. Baranov, N. A. International security and mechanisms for its provision. Lectures on the course «Fundamentals of international security». (2016). [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://infopedia.su/14xd3d.html 49. Sergeeva, I. A., & Sergeev, A. Y. (2017). An integrated system for ensuring the economic security of an enterprise. Penza: Publishing House of PSU. 50. Tsoller, S. V. (2012). Danger and damage as the most important categories of the Russian national security system. Political Sciences, 5(5), 117-118. 51. Oleynikov, E. A. (Ed.). (2004). Economic and national security. Moscow: Publishing house «Exam». 52. Goncharenko, L. P. [et al.]. (2023). Economic security. (Under the general editorship of L. P. Goncharenko). 2nd ed., reprint and additional. Moscow: Yurait Publishing House. 53. Chernyavskaya, N. M. (2011). Fundamentals of national security. Komsomolsk-on-Amur: Publishing House of AmGPGU. 54. Gerasimov, P. A. (2009). On the conceptual approach of the department to the theoretical category «economic security». Business security, 1, 25-32. 55. Galuzin, A. F. (2009). «Danger» as a scientific and legal category. Legal policy and legal life, 4, 66-72. 56. Zelenkov, M.Y. (2015). Danger, threat – basic categories of the theory of national security. National security. Nota Bene, 1(36), 32-47. 57. Pershin, A. A. (2004). On the question of the categorical and conceptual apparatus in the theory of national security. Government, 6, 48-54. 58. Kravchuk, A. A. (2016). Categories of «challenge», «danger», «threat» in the theory of national security. Bulletin of the Zabaikalsky State University, 11, 65-74. 59. Kortunov, S. V. (2007). Conceptual foundations of national and international security. Moscow: State University-Higher School of Economics. 60. Barabin, V. V. (1997). Military and political activity of the state in the national security system. Moscow: International Education Program. 61. Markov, A. A. (2010). The concept and characteristics of information risks, dangers and threats in modern post-industrial society. Vestn. Volgogr. state University, Ser. 7, Philosophy, 1(11), 123-129. 62. Kobysheva, M. S., Fedotov, A.V., & Kabyshev, K. I. (2017). Modeling of threats to enterprise security while not maintaining confidentiality of personal information of employees. Management of economic systems, 5(99), 19. 63. Babaytsev, I. V., Mastryukov, B. S., Medvedev, V. T., Papaev, S. T., & Potapova, A. V. (2014). Bezopasnost’ zhiznedeatel’nosti. Moscow: Publishing house of the center «Academy». 64. On security: The Law of the Russian Federation N 2446-1 dated 03/5/1992 (as amended on 06/26/2008). [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://docs.cntd.ru/document/9002808. 65. Tyagunov, G. V., Volkova, A. A., Baryshev E. E., Tsepelev, V. S., & Shishkunov, V. G. (2015). Safety of life: Explanatory dictionary of terms. Yekaterinburg: Ural University Press. 66. Doroshenko, A. A. (2009). National security of Russia. Tula: MAKB. 67. Prokhozhev, A. A. (Ed.). (2005). The general theory of national security. Moscow: Publishing House of RAGS. 68. Gusev, V. S. [et al.]. (2001). Economics and organization of security of business entities. (2nd ed.). St. Petersburg: Publishing house «The Enchanted Wanderer». 69. Mamonov, V. V. (2003). The concept and place of national security in the system of the constitutional system of Russia. Journal of Russian Law, 6, 24-33. 70. Sipok, R. P. On the issue of determining the essence of security threats [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://docplayer.com/40766028-K-voprosu-ob-opredelenii-sushchnosti-ugroz-bezopasnosti.html. 71. Fomin, S. A. (2014). Ensuring national security: a course of lectures. Moscow: FLINT. 72. Krotov, M. I., & Muntiyan, V. I. (2016). Economic security of Russia: A systematic approach. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of NPK “ROST". 73. Mikhailov, L. A. (Ed.). (2014). Fundamentals of national security. Moscow: Publishing house of the center “Academy". 74. Korzhov, G. V. (1996). Economic security of Russia: external relations. Moscow: «Informdinamo». 75. Pronyaeva, L. I., & Fedotenkova, O. A. (2018). Identification of threats and assessment of economic security of an agricultural organization. National interests: priorities and security, 8(14), 1479-1497. 76. Odintsovo, N. A. & Mammadova, D. M. (2019). Features of economic security of business entities. Bulletin of the Taganrog Institute of Management and Economics, 1, 31-35. 77. Barikaev, E. N., & Saradzheva, O. V. (2013). Financial security. Moscow: UNITY-DANA, Law and Justice. 78. Arefyeva, A.V., & Kuzenko, T. B. (2014). Planning of economic security of enterprises. Moscow: Publishing House of the European University. 79. Lantsman, E. N. (2010). Conceptual approaches to the problem of ensuring the economic security of an organization. Bulletin of AGTU, Ser.: Ekonomika, 1, 58-62. 80. Kurinov, B. A. (1984). Scientific foundations of crime qualification. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. 81. Kazantsev, S. V., & Karpov, V. V. (Ed.). (2016). Threats and security of the Russian economy: Evaluation experience. Novosibirsk: Institute of Economics and Industrial Production Organization of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 82. On National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2012). [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1200000527 83. Protsenko, S. V. (2010). Threats to the transport security of the Russian Federation. The Russian justice system, 8, 40-43. 84. Mosov, S. P., Saliy, S. M., Moldakhanova, G., & Arapov, M. K. The essence and correlation of the categories «challenge», «danger» and «threat» in the theory of border security. [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://na-journal.ru/2-2019-gumanitarnye-nauki/1841-sushchnost-i-sootnoshenie-kategorij-vyzov-opasnost-i-ugroza-v-teorii-pogranichnoj-bezopasnosti 85. The strategy of economic security of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030. [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from http://government.ru/docs/all/111512/ 86. Minyailenko, N. N., & Lungu, A. S. (2010). The genesis of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as an element of the national security system of the Russian Federation. Military Law Journal, 1, 2-6. 87. Gupanova, Yu. E. The place and role of the economy of customs in ensuring the economic security of the state. [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from https://en.ppt-online.org/136856 88. Panteleeva, T. A. (2018). Economic security of an economic entity [Monograph]. Moscow: Institute of World Civilizations. 89. Usova, E. O., & Bulygin, Z. S. (2021). The concept of threats to the organization, external and internal threats. X International Scientific and Practical Conference «Modern trends and innovations in science and production», (Mezhdurechensk, April 22, 2021): proceedings of the conference, 272-1-272-4. Mezhdurechensk: KGTU named after T. F. Gorbachev. 90. Rasskazov, I. A. (2020). Monographic study of the concept of «threat to the economic security of an enterprise». Young Scientist, 48(338), 544-548. 91. Gaponenko, V. F., Bespalko, A. L., & Vlaskov, A. S. (2007). Economic security of enterprises. Approaches and principles. Moscow: Publishing house "Axis-89". 92. Suglobov, A. E., Khmelev, S. A., & Orlova, E. A. (2015). Economic security of the enterprise. Moscow: UNITY. 93. Gerasimov, K. B., & Nesolenov, G. F. (2011). Economic security. Samara: Samara State Aerospace University Publishing House. 94. Gatchin, Yu. A., Sukhostat, V. V., Kurakin, A. S., & Donetskaya, Yu. V. (2018). Theory of information security and methodology of information protection. St. Petersburg: National Research University ITMO. 95. Kobysheva, M. S., Volodin, A. A., Ivanov, M. V., Feofilova, T. Yu., & Manaseryan, T. M. (2021). Risks and threats to Russia's economic security in the context of digital transformation. Bulletin of the Altai Academy of Economics and Law, Series: Economic Sciences, 2, 53-60. 96. Tambovtsev, V. L. (1995). Economic security of economic systems: the structure of the problem. Bulletin of the Moscow State University, Series 6. Economics, 3, 3-9. 97. Yarochkin, V. I. (2016). Information security. Moscow: Fund «Mir», Academic Project. 98. Serebryakova, T. Yu., & Timofeeva, N. Yu. (2013). Economic security and threats: the essence and approaches to definition. Vestnik NSUEM, 3, 237-246. 99. Firsova, O. A. (2014). Economic security of the enterprise. Eagle: Publishing house MABIV. 100. Sosnin, A. S., & Prygunov, P. Ya. (2002). Business security management. Kiev: European University Press. 101. Zaplatinsky, V. (2012). A new definition of the concept of «danger». Scientific works of the Academy named after J. Dlugosz in Czestochowa, Series: Technical and information education. VII, 179-200. Czestochowa: Publishing House of the J. Dlugosz Academy in Czestochowa. 102. Chekmarev, V. V. (2013). Economic security and economic protection: the structure of the problem. Bulletin of the N. A. Nekrasov KGU, 3, 77-81.
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
First of all, the author should carefully consider the theoretical and methodological basis of his own research before starting to criticize other people's research. To come up with a definition of a certain term casually, and on this basis, to demand that others immediately accept the author's interpretation does not seem to be a completely scientific position. Hence the main problems with the scientific novelty of the reviewed work: in the absence of an understanding of which SCIENTIFIC instruments (and not a means of cavalry attack) the results of the reviewed work were obtained, it is impossible to say which of the results has scientific novelty and reliability. Criticism for the sake of criticism is not science. Scientific criticism is possible ONLY on a SCIENTIFIC basis and for SCIENTIFIC purposes (when in the course of research it turns out that one or another interpretation of a term is either misleading and gives false results, or does not prevent further increment of scientific knowledge. In all other cases (and above all, in the case of the author's banal disagreement with existing interpretations), criticism of the terminological apparatus does not make scientific sense. None of the representatives of science is interested in whether the author agrees with the existing approaches or not. Such interest can arise only if the author shows that his proposed approach provides new opportunities for the increment of scientific knowledge. In the reviewed article, the author did not demonstrate such capabilities. And his own definition is, firstly, too abstract, but on the other hand, it contains unproven (and, it is suspected, unprovable) details. Are high–voltage wires on the railway a potential threat to the life and health of citizens or a real one? Is there a potential or real chemical plant in the city? If you try to WORK with the definition that the author insists on, you quickly realize that the definitions proposed by other authors are much more specific (because they relate to specific objects) are much preferable as a conceptual framework for research. And if the author had demonstrated the greater heuristic power of his own interpretation of the concept of threat, a scientific novelty could have been discovered in the peer-reviewed article. This implies the second point that the author should pay attention to: to moderate his critical fervor and focus on a comparative analysis of the heuristic potential of the criticized approaches with his own approach. At this stage of the study, the reader sees only the author's disagreement with existing approaches, but in the absence of a theoretical and methodological framework, as well as a clear SCIENTIFIC argument in favor of the author's preferred interpretation of the concept of threat, there is no way to draw reasonable conclusions about the polemic presented in the article. Thus, the claims of the author of the article to the broad scientific consensus regarding the existing link between threat and danger are unclear. Similarly, the grounds for criticizing "incomplete" definitions (that is, they do not reach the author's level of abstraction!) are unclear, that is, they de facto do not distinguish between "real" and "potential" types of threats. The problematic nature of such a distinction was discussed above. The author also does not disclose the reasons why the scientific community is obliged to accept this distinction (the author's reference to "accuracy, brevity, concreteness and monosemanticism" does not work in this case, since by making this distinction, it is the author who violates all four principles of scientific definitions). To summarize. When finalizing the article, it is necessary: - to conduct a theoretical and methodological reflection, to show in what specific conceptual context the author works, what scientific methods he used to obtain the results, for what reasons this methodological choice was made; - against the background of criticism of existing approaches to threat analysis, to conduct a comparative analysis of the heuristic potential of the criticized approaches and the proposed approach, showing the reasons why the latter is more preferable; - include threat research in world science among the analyzed works; - summarize the results obtained with an emphasis on their scientific novelty and reliability; - carefully proofread the entire text to eliminate stylistic and grammatical errors (first of all, to eliminate ambiguities in the wording). After eliminating these shortcomings, the article can be recommended for publication.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2025 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
