This article investigates the relationship between Regional Security Complex theory (RSCT) with both traditional and human security perspectives. Traditionally, security studies concerned mainly issues of war and force; and treated the state as the only referent object and understood "security" in purely objective terms. By contrast, RSCT asserts that, as "a self-referential practice", security should be regarded as a phenomenon of socially constructed intersubjective politics, not understandable either in purely objective or subjective terms. Yet, RSC theorists are reluctant to address the issue of human security, as they fear this could result in a reductionist understanding of security (see, Buzan 2004). But we must ask whether this reluctance is sustainable? The key issues are conceptual clarity and moral judgements. In terms of conceptual clarity, it would be unwise to expand the security agenda so widely that everything becomes a security issue. Moreover, the concept of human security remains ambiguous, and hence presents analytical difficulties. However, if IR is to reflect developments in the real world and respond to challenges arising from the policy arena, it must engage with the concept of human security. In other words, the intersubjectivity of securitisation means that the referent object of security ceases to be fixed. Ethical questions are less straightforward. The human security approach, with its idea of "people-centric-security", requires us to reorient security thinking around the individual as the referent object. This is bound to produce ethical dilemmas, particularly when there are conflicts between individuals and states. In fact, the main recent disruptions to international security have resulted more from human suffering by natural disasters or of violations of human rights by governments than from interstate wars. How then shall we draw the lines of human security? If threats to human security come not only from natural disasters, but also from conflicts between states and their citizens, does this mean that state sovereignty should be curbed? So far, the extensive debates on issues of "order" and "justice" have failed to produce satisfactory answers. By definition, ethical judgements are difficult. Thus, the RSC theorists' conservative approach to human security is understandable, but little is gained by excluding the concept. Human security issues are becoming more important in international society and present RSCT with conceptual and moral challenges. Above all, the key concepts of RSCT- security for whom, from what and by what means now require ethical judgements. If this is tile case, future security studies may be forced to transcend the traditional limits of International Relation and have to embrace the insights and methodologies of neighbouring academic disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]