REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 GLOBALIZATION

Globalization is the process of the integration of economic, political, social and cultural values across international boundaries. Middleman (2006:6), sees globalization as a historical transformation in the economy and modes of existence in politics, loss in the degree of control exercised such that the focus of power gradually shifts in varying proportions above and below the territorial state and in culture, evaluation of collective achievement or perceptions of them (Ogonnaya and Ehigiamusoe, 2013). Globalization deals with the increasing breakdown in trade barriers and the in increasing integration of world market (Fafowara, 1998:5). In other words, Ohuabunawa (1999:20) opined that globalization is an evolution which is systematical restricting interactive phase among relations by breaking down barriers in the areas of culture, communication and several other fields of endeavors”. This is evident from its push of free-market economics, liberated democracy, good governance, gender equality and environmental sustainability among other holistic values for the people of the member states. Globalization goes beyond the economic sphere alone. Many scholars seem to have focused on the economic sphere of the concept as explained by Tony and Jan (2003), globalization is a process integrating not just the economy but culture, technology and governance. The concept is use to represent the growing worldwide interdependence of the people and countries (Ogbonnaya, 2013:60). This process has accelerated dramatically because of the huge advance in technology (Anim Etchie and Dickson, 2003, 156); including global telecommunication infrastructure, cross border data flow, the internet, satellite networks and wireless telephones are all credited to globalization (Adesina, 2012, 193). The increase in arms proliferation, cyber attacks, ethnic violence, global crime, and during trafficking are occurred by globalization (Davies, 2003). Bugan (2007) simplifies the security implication of globalism when he opined that, globalization as an economic activity now dominates international relations, replacing war as the driving force behind both the state and world politics. In either view, the key point about globalization is that much of this activity and its consequences transcend the territorial framing of the state”.

2.2 NATIONAL SECURITY

The concept national security cannot be discussed without making reference to the meaning of state. A state is the most inclusive organization which has formal institutions, for regulating the most significant contracted relationship of man within its scope (Anifowose 1999:85). The state plays a major role in the security of her citizens. Security is the key function of the state (Buzan, 2003). Security is a situation which provides national and international conditions favourable to the protection of a nation state and its citizens against existing and potential threat. National security traditionally is understood as the acquisition, deployment and use of military force to achieve national goals (Held, 1998:226). Security is equally viewed as falling within the domain of the military force (Held, 1998). It emphasized the coercive means of putting all the aspects of the state on check. It is the ability of a nation to protect its national value from external threats. National security is seen in terms of a nation’s military capabilities or the struggle to overcome internal and external aggression. A nation is secured once it is free from military threats or political coercion (Aliyu, 2012). National security has traditionally been about the survival of the state against military threats posed by other states (Buzan, 2003). Security threat differs amongst nations. The major security threat to some powerful nations like the USA and its allies may be how to defeat international terrorists and to promote their economic interest and democratic values (Aliyu, 2012). However, national like Nigeria has its own peculiar security threat determined by socio-economic and political circumstance. This article is concern with the threat to Nigerian security caused by the activities of the Jama’ at Ahlas sunnah lid-da’wa wal-jihad, popularly known as Boko Haram

2.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Since globalization is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon, it can be explained in a number of alternative ways. Even within an international relations framework, there are numerous theoretical explanations, which generally follow the lines of the “great” paradigmatic debates. Realism (neorealism), neoliberal institutionalism, and neo-Marxism provide the most influential tools for understanding the way globalization affects international politics, while constructivism puts more emphasis on building it into a broader context of social interaction. For the purpose of this study realist theory will be utilised. During the course of the last three decades the intensity and extent of global interconnectedness has grown to be ever more apparent in every sphere from the cultural to the economic. Economic integration on a global scale has increased as the growth of global production, finance and commerce connects the fate of households, communities and nations across the globe’s major economic zones and beyond within a rising worldwide market economy. Contemporary globalization shares characteristics common with earlier phases, but is differentiated by some distinct organizational elements, creating a world which is increasingly shaped by novel technologies, a universal economy, the emergence of global and regional systems of governance, new means of global regulation and the rise worldwide systemic crises. Globalization also has consequences for international politics as it has brought about a shift in the type and nature of political organizations, with one distinguishing aspect of this being the rise of global politics (Intelliconn, 2012). Furthermore, the forces and processes of globalization have significant ramifications for the theoretical approaches to international politics, and it with this in mind that this paper addresses the concern that globalization weakens the fundamental assumptions in international relations. (McGrew, 2005: 20; Held, 2004: 73, 89; Walt, 2002, 197). Realism was born as a theoretical approach to international relations in the inter-war period of 1919-39 and as an ideological rival to idealism. The theoretical approaches rising from the realist tradition offer an explanation of politics as it is in reality as opposed to the normative theoretical approaches that provide recommendations and instructions for political activity and how politics should ideally be. The realist theories tend to concentrate on the permanent historical experience and the doubtful of efforts and attempts to rise above the competitive character of political life (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005: 162; Guzzini, 1998: 16; Walt, 2002: 199). As with most theoretical approaches to the study of international relations, there are a number of different denominations within realism but despite this all theories emerging from the realist family subscribe to three principle elements or fundamental assumptions, these being statism, self-help and survival. With regards to the principle of statism, realists hold that states are the key actors in international relations and that sovereignty is its defining characteristic. Realists maintain that because states are the principal actors in the international system and because no state recognizes the authority of another above its own, the international system is left lacking an international authoritative figure. In other words the international system lacks the existence of a central authority capable of regulating and governing global affairs and as a result the international system is in a state of anarchy. This lack of a central authority in the international system and the existence of a number of sovereign states within it constitute the explanation offered by many realists for the perceived insecurities, threats and dangers to the very survival of the state. Furthermore, realists argue that in this anarchic system states will compete amongst each other for influence, markets and security. Thus within the international system, realists argue that states are locked in a competitive struggle for power, as the accumulation of power is seen as critical to ensuring and sustaining the survival of the state (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005: 172-173; Walt, 2002: 199-200; Guzzini, 1998: 26-27). The principle of survival in the realist tradition is of paramount importance as all realists argue that in international politics the core objective of the state is survival. For realists survival is an objective, which once attained, lays the foundation for the achievement of all other goals. In an attempt at ensuring and guaranteeing the survival of the state, it may opt to choose one of two means – power or security maximizing – to achieving this end. This gives rise to two emerging strands of thought within the realist paradigm, namely defensive and offensive realism. In terms of defensive realism, Waltz and Grieco (1997, as cited in Dunne and Schmidt, 2005: 174) maintain that security is the principal interest of the state and as a result states will only seek to acquire the required amount of power necessary to guarantee survival. As a result, this view holds that states will not aim to acquire increasing levels of power of this process is to jeopardize its own security. On the other hand, offensive realists argue that the ultimate objective of every state is to gain hegemonic status in the international system. This view further holds that states constantly crave more power and are ready, should the opportunity arise to alter the status quo even if such an action would place their own security in jeopardy. Furthermore, defensive realism holds that states will enter into alliances in order to balance the power when faced with aggressive or strong states, while offensive realists argue that competition is rife in the international system because states are willing to risk their security and survival in an aim to enhance their status in the international system (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005:174; Walt, 2002: 200, 204,207; Guzzini, 1998: 127). The third and final fundamental assumption of realism, self-help, is conceptualized in the context of the international system lacking an overarching authority figure. As a result of this state of anarchy in the international system states must provide for their security themselves as no one else will. Furthermore, because of the anarchic and competitive nature of the international system, states can never entrust their security or survival in another state. However, in the process of providing for its own security and aiming to secure its survival, the actions carried out by the state in question feeds the growing insecurity and perceptions of danger and threats of other states. This drive for survival and security by one state gives rise to what is termed the security dilemma. Security dilemmas originate when the military armament of one state creates an irresolvable ambiguous perception as to whether the actions taken are for defensive or offensive purposes. The conclusion to this scenario is that one state’s pursuit of security is the cause for another’s insecurity, and the military armament undertaken by one state is likely to be followed by that of its neighboring states (Intelliconn, 2012), (Dunne & Schmidt, 2005: 175; Walt, 2002: 200; Guzzini, 1998: 127).

2.4 VARIETIES OF THESES ON GLOBALISATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Globalisation theorists have advanced different positions regarding the national security function of contemporary states. To some ‘hard’ globalisation proponents, globalisation has already ushered in drastic changes to all of the state’s functions, including the security role. Ardent proponents, like Kenichi Ohmae have contended that, under the irreversible influence of modern information technology, genuinely borderless economies are emerging, affecting business behaviour and the values, judgements and preferences of citizens all over the world. Other ‘hard globalization proponents have argued that, under the weight of global social forces, the individual citizen’s loyalty to the state has declined and will decline further in the future. States are left without war as a mechanism to foster national loyalty and patriotism, and there is nothing in sight with an equivalent ability to generate the binding glue that this social institution provided nation-states for centuries. Thus, the ‘hard’ globalisation proponents expect that globalisation is in the process of replacing the state with global institutions that are more appropriate for coping with global challenges. ‘Soft’ globalisation proponents, conversely, argue that changes have been taking place incrementally, yet in significant measure. To them, states are increasingly reluctant to use military instruments to resolve inter-state problems, partially due to the growing desire for wealth acquisition through economic liberalization and trade. The norm of territorial integrity has become entrenched, making it virtually impossible for states to alter borders by force and receive international recognition. The dramatic decline of inter-state wars since the end of the Cold War in 1991 is seen as proof that the activities surrounding warmaking are no longer the primary focus of states; even major powers (barring the US, perhaps) are conducting their limited competition though ‘soft geopolitics’, with less emphasis on open arms races, crises, and war. In the ‘soft’ globalization view, major security threats no longer consist primarily of military challenges, but take the form of terrorism, drug trafficking, disease, ecological disasters, and mass poverty. These theorists note that notions of ‘human security’, as opposed to military security, increasingly affect the preferences of policy-makers in many countries. With the decline of geopolitical conflicts, they argue that the military in most advanced states has become more focused on internal and international crime fighting or policing as opposed to waging inter-state wars

2.5 FOUR CORE ARGUMENTS ON GLOBALISATION AND STATE SECURITY

Although there is no single integrated theory of globalisation, as the preceding discussion shows, nearly all versions of it focus on the weakening of the nation-state as the primary unit of international politics, and on the decreasing importance of military security in determining states’ behaviour and national policies. If the core arguments on the state’s security function that are present in most globalisation theses are valid, then changes should be visible in four core areas on a global scale. First, if the theses were correct, there would be a major decline in interstate armed-conflicts world-wide. This would occur because of the spread of relatively cheap destructive weapons technology across the globe would paradoxically make the use of force to counter threats far more costly and so encourage restraint. In addition, increasing challenges from sub-state and non-state actors in a globalised world should shift the state’s focus from interstate warfare to ‘wars of a third kind”’. Second, an increasing number of states would drastically reduce their military forces and substantially cut military expenditures, since increasing scales of destruction and the decreasing frequency of interstate wars should encourage states to pursue cheaper deterrent strategies, rather than expensive war-fighting doctrines. Third, states would increasingly rely on international and regional institutions for their security while reducing their emphasis on national military forces, as multilateral approaches would be more cost-efficient and bettersuited to countering transnational challenges. They would also reach out to non-governmental organisations and private military companies (PMCs) to assist them in the provision of security. Finally, the advent of transnational terrorism would increasingly paralyze the state’s ability to provide security to its citizens, as, with ever more porous borders, states cannot easily prevent terrorists from recruiting and organising across the globe or transporting hazardous materials, money, or weapons across national borders. By examining these four key areas, we will assess the extent to which changes have taken place, whether these changes are caused by globalisation, and whether they are sustainable or not.

Inter-State Wars

A key measurable argument of the thesis that globalisation leads to the decline of the national security state, pertains to the decline in the amount of inter-state wars in the international system. On this measure there is some supporting evidence, since there has in fact been a considerable decline in inter-state wars since the Cold War. In 1991, fifty-one states, representing 33 percent of all independent countries, were engaged in some form of serious conflict, many of which were interstate wars. By 1999, this total had declined by half, both in the number of cases and the percentage of involved states, indicating a preponderance of intra-state wars.35 Indeed, only two of the conflicts (involving 23 countries) with 1000 or more battlefield deaths in 2000 were interstate conflicts. This decline continued in 2001 when 24 armed conflicts occurred in 22 locations and 2002 when 21 armed conflicts raged in 19 locations. Most of the worldwide conflict is manifested in civil wars, terrorism, and political violence—i.e., intra-state conflicts even when more than one state is involved in these conflicts.38 Thus states seem to be less willing than in the past to resort to military force to resolve international disputes. The problem that arises, however, is assessing the exact cause for the decline in inter-state wars. Economic globalisation may be a factor, but it is unclear whether it is the primary cause. Changes in values, ideas and norms, particularly the anti-imperial norm, and the mitigating role of international institutions have also been characterized as explanatory variables for the absence of major war, giving further credibility to the globalisation thesis. Other factors, though, could be the end of the Cold War, the preponderance of American power and the consequent transformation of the international system to near unipolarity, the increasing number of democratically-oriented states, and, above all, the technological changes that obstruct offence and support defence and/or deterrence. It would take an enormous amount of careful research to make any meaningful claim as to which factor is most significant in this regard. A related question that needs to be answered is: if states are not fighting wars to settle disputes, to what alternative strategies are they resorting? According to the globalisation thesis, an increasing number of states are relying on economic and other soft power approaches to security, as opposed to military instruments. Under this logic, there would be a decrease in the use of coercive military force and, in its place, an increase in economic sanctions and other non-violent coercive sanctions. For a period at least, economic sanctions did in fact become the preferred alternative to warfare against states that, like Iraq and Yugoslavia, defied the will of the United States. And the global use of economic sanctions as a policy alternative has increased markedly in the last decade or so. It is not clear, however, that economic sanctions have replaced war, as some of these sanctions were imposed either just before or following intense military campaigns, as was the case with both Iraq and Yugoslavia. Moreover, there is considerable debate about whether economic sanctions work or not. Robert Pape, for example, argues that except in restricted situations where the target is a very weak, dependent or vulnerable state (such as Indian sanctions against Nepal in 1990), and the demands were trivial (such as threatened Arab sanctions against Canada in 1979), economic sanctions have rarely been effective in forcing changes to the foreign or security policies of states and therefore are not a reliable alternative to the use of military force.42 There is, however, some evidence that economic calculations may sometimes help alter state security policies. For example, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has argued that in the summer of 2002 India chose not to attack Pakistani camps training militants to launch incursions into Indian Kashmir because of the pressures exerted by the computer software industry a major source of India’s economic growth which led Delhi to fear that its economy would suffer incalculable harm if a war were to break out in the region.43 And yet, even in this case the Indian escalation options were limited by Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons and the US diplomatic and military involvement in the region. To sum up, then, the recent decline in inter-state wars is a major development in world politics. However, the connection of this trend with globalisation is not fully apparent as a myriad of factors may be causing this transformation.

Military Spending

Another core proposition of globalisation theorists is that military spending should decline considerably under the pressures of economic globalisation and economic liberalization.44 There was, indeed, a major decline in military spending from 1988 to 1996, when world military expenditures decreased by over 30 percent from $1.066 trillion to $708 billion (in constant 1995 dollars and exchange rates).45 However, by 1999 world military expenditures had begun to increase again. In 2000, world defence spending increased by 5 percent, to $798 billion in 2001 dollar prices.46 In 2001, that figure would increase by another 5 percent to about $839 billion.47 It would be very difficult to prove that the earlier short-term decline happened due to globalisation. In fact, it seems much more likely that the immediate cause of this change was the end of the Cold War, which was akin to the end of a major war, which meant that states no longer needed to compete at the intense Cold War level. Further, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent economic decline of Russia took away a substantial portion of the total global spending on military. The number of proxy wars supported by the superpowers also declined, resulting in fewer weapon transfers to competing groups. Moreover, if globalisation were the key inhibiting factor on arms spending, what would explain the increase in military spending since 1999, even before the 2001 terrorist attacks? As the American example indicates, even states that are heavily tied to the global economy have begun to increase their defence expenditures. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist strikes, the US has increased its defence spending substantially. Under the five year defence spending plan adopted in 2002, the US has allocated 2.1 trillion dollars on defence over five years and, indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that in the current defence environment US defence spending will rise about 25 percent in the next decade, from an estimated $452 billion in 2004 to $564 billion in 2014.48 The other Western countries and those affected by terrorism are also expected to increase their spending in the years to come. Global arms sales data provides another useful resource in assessing the impact of global forces on the state’s security function. A Congressional Research Service study published in August 2001 reported that, during 2000, international arms sales grew by 8 percent to $36.9 billion, with the US responsible for nearly half ($18.6 billion) of all arms sold on the global market. The key sellers, after the US, are: Russia ($7.7 billion), France ($4.1 billion), Germany ($1.1 billion), Britain ($600 million), China ($400 million), and Italy ($100 million). The major buyers have been developing states. Thus, states continue to maintain large defence budgets and appear to be spending large amounts on military hardware to perpetuate their traditional national security roles, although they are increasingly relying on the global market to access military goods. While globalisation may have spelled the end of autarky as a means of pursuing security, therefore, it has not heralded the end of traditional national security establishments themselves

2.6 ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN NIGERIA BORDER SECURITY

The study discovered in details the challenges to border security as it could be observed that Nigeria lacks border protection and much importance has not been accorded to our national borders as evident in the vulnerabilities of threat pose at our national borders such as trans border activities and the prevalent terrorist attack that befall the country resulting in the unrestrained influx of migrants through the routes. The challenges are discussed below:

Porosity of Borders

The porous borders contributed and continue to encourage the cross border crimes and instability in the region. Also, promotes the increasing number of illegal trade such as smuggling of contra bands goods- adulterated drugs, stolen cars including cars that have exceeded the permissible age limit prescribed for use in Nigeria and other goods like shoes, poultry products and many more. The porous borders could also be explained in the use of dried tree, oil drums as well as rims of tyres to demarcate the national borders, this makes the border to be disorganized, poorly managed and in secured. This promotes the unrestrained influx of illegal migrants and cross border activities. However, there are indefinable corridors or regions that served as a route to these illegal migrants, thereby posing a serious threat to the country and the national borders. For instance, it has been discovered that Nigeria has 1497 irregular and 84 regular routes as movements were done through the illegal routes.( Nigeria Immigration Service). There are so many outlets for smuggling of various goods across the border

Corruption

The corrupt practices of the security operatives at the borders pose a serious challenge to the border security. The corrupt and inept attitudes of border officials resulting in the numerous check points of bamboo suspended by oil drums also contributed negatively to the border security. It is important to note that these checkpoints are not meant to check passport by but to extort money from people. Hence, the criminals easily infiltrate the borders as smugglers bribe their way into the country. It also explains why we have many criminals involving in trans border activities and terrorists in the country as criminals move in arms and ammunition and thousands of innocent Nigerians have been killed and many more die in the hands of Islamic sects with the influx of weapons in the country as smugglers continue with their business without being punished.

Inadequate Manpower and Logistic Support

Another problem related to border security in Nigeria is the inadequate manpower or personnel which has a negative impact on the security of our national borders. It makes it difficult for the security operatives to adequately maim the national boundaries and effectively patrol these several corridors that lead to the country. The inadequate manpower does not allow for adequate patrolling of these illegal routes as criminals use the illegal routes as a means of entry into the country. Also the criminals sometimes outsmarted the security operatives at the borders due to inadequate personnel and logistics problems.

Poorly patterned Borders

Nigeria borders are artificial creation from colonialism which continues to pose a serious threat to the country. The demarcation of the borders were done by the colonial masters without considerations to the culture of the people as can be seen in the cultural ties of marriages, celebration of religious festivities, language and many more. It should be noted therefore, that boundary delimitation affects the cultural and ethnic homogeneity of the border communities to the extent that one cannot differentiate a Nigerian from Nigerian due to culture and linguistics in which communities with homogenous culture and language are found at different sides of the borderline hence makes it difficult to put in place immigration laws when members can just change their identity when they feel like.

Institutional Framework

ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of People, Goods and Services was established by the ECOWAS Member States in 1979. The main aim of this Protocol is to facilitate the free movement of people, goods and services within the West Africa without Visa; this simply means that any ECOWAS citizen who poses valid travelling document and International Health Certificate can transverse the entire region without a visa. Thereby, compelling all member states to abolish the use of visa in order to ease the movement of people in the region. However, in spite of the positive pronouncement of this protocol, it has its own negative effects. This protocol allows the movement of criminals to move across the border and also engage in cross border activities under the pretext of this protocol. It is important to note that; border has become a safe passage for people without identities as ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement has been abused to mean an entry without valid documents. The following factors pose a serious threat to the internal security of lives and property in the country, as the infractions at the border calls for enforcement of reforms of the border control system. While terrorists move from in and out of the country, smugglers of all kinds of contrabands continue with their business. For instance, the recent security challenges in Nigeria, there are speculations that these groups are also from neighboring countries, this would not have been possible if there were adequate security at our national borders. The borders are seen as means of smuggling of illegal weapons and all contrabands goods, even armed robbers usually escape through the boundaries after committing crimes in the country. All these tend to endanger the socioeconomic development of the country as well as the political stability. Also, the integrity and the image of the country is now put to questioning as Nigerians face a lot of harassment and subject to all kinds of humiliation outside the country.

Political Instability and Economic Crisis in Neighboring Countries

Nigeria is the most populous as well as the richest in West Africa, in terms of economic, population preponderant, military capability, Nigeria dwarfs all these countries. This explains the more reason why crisis in neighboring countries such as political instability, famine and diseases split over to Nigeria as her proximate neighbors depend solely on Nigeria. This was also evident in Babangida’s speech the former President of Nigeria, when he said that none can benefit in the economic collapse of any country in the sub-region. This simply means that Nigeria national security of Nigeria is the security of its immediate neighbors as this is demonstrated in both scope and intensity of cross border smuggling activities which obtain in their daily interaction. However, when Ghana was suffering from economic downturn in which many citizens of Ghana flew to Nigeria to make ends meet. Nigeria was badly affected that she had to send them back to their country due to these illegal aliens that invaded the country. Furthermore, the factors enumerated above tend to pose a serious challenge to the country by spreading to the internal insecurity of lives and property and inform cross border activities one way or other. Also, in the 21st century which is characterized by globalization, there is need for integration and cooperation if not we will lose out in the new global order. As globalization emerges, so is the challenges become more complex and requires a new approach. It is against this background that we cannot be dormant to the pursuit of security at our national borders in Nigeria or else the environment will continue to be hostile and insecure for the people therein.

2.8 IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

Here, it is important to trace the implications of globalization on national security. Goldstein (1991) view national security as closely connected to the preservation of the border of a state. He looks at the concept of security closely connected to the protection of the national border of a state, and seen as an important aspect of any political institution, in a state of insecurity, threat is regarded as flux. The emergence of globalization that come with new information and communication brings about new threat to national security and challenge the traditional approach to national security as being obsolete and inadequate to combat the new threats. The events of 9/11 also further moved meaningful security discourses both at the national and international levels away from conventional conceptions. However, globalization has its own positive effects such as the revolution in transportation, communication and all spheres of life. Globalization makes the mode of communication easy and new innovations in the conduct of relations between and among countries of the world. Despite the positive effects, there are still some negative consequences which continue to threaten the survival of state in international system. Trans national crime is a criminal activity that transcends beyond national borders as it has become easier for criminals to engage in these clandestine activities through globalization, money, goods and people can easily be moved across the national borders without restrictions and thereby, difficult to track down these criminals due to the advancement of technology. With all benefit that globalization has offered mankind, it becomes difficult if not impossible to overlook some of its negative consequences particularly in the area of crime. One of the consequences in the area of promoting transnational crimes which is a serious threat to the international system. Also, the emergence of computer and the internet facilities make it possible for these criminals to engage in cyber crimes as locally called ‘yahoo yahoo or yahoo plus’ in which they can easily tap into one’s account and do away with all the money. Globalization also brings about moral decadence in youth of these days ranging from watching from pornographic films and all sort, thereby exposing them to sexual abuse which is inimical to the society. This therefore, requires a new trend of security approach as well as shifting from conventional security. These threats include the following: -Smuggling of Contraband Goods such as firearms, Human trafficking including Child and Woman, Money laundering, Fraud/ Theft, Prostitution, Proliferation of Arms/ Nuclear Products, illegal Migrants, Hard Drug Trafficking such as cocaine, heroin and many more. All these pose a threat to Nigeria’s national security and put the state at the risk of violence and crisis. These crimes not only pose security threat but also dent the image of the country in which citizens are subjected to harassment in abroad, deny the country of foreign investors and also fear to do business with the Nigeria. In this context terrorism, banditry and other incursions at the borders are main concern for states with its highly complicated characteristics as the global world is now faced with an immediate threat. Furthermore, when states are much connected and interdependent, it becomes a threat to international security as this is a turning point for all states to redirect our security policy and create awareness of the increasing damages in which many innocent people have injured and killed. Globalization and trans border crimes are matters of growing concern not only for governments in the modern time, also dominating topics in the study of international relations due to the increasingly damages on states in international system. The advancement of technology is the cause of development and the spread of sophisticated arms, porous borders resulting in open nature of national borders, the increase in military hardware of terrorist and also the rate of crimes at the borders. Despite all efforts put in place both at the national and global levels to curb these Trans national crime, the incursions have remained on increase. The institutional framework put in place such as the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) to check the activities of the hard drug trafficking is yet to stem these crimes. Indeed, these incursions continue to challenge the security and stability of the country resulting from deep ethnic, political, social and religious cleavages. Also, the implication is the loss of revenue for the governments. Governments declare loss to these trades, as the trades are not known or reordered thereby; leading to underestimation of the contribution of trade in the subregion and the trade also creates problems associated with national security. For instance, Nigeria has witnessed so many cases where trailer carrying bags of rice was later discovered carrying arms and ammunition in to the country which is dangerous to the security of the country. The influx of illegal migrants have also increased the rate of unemployment problems in Nigeria especially as private employers prefer to employ migrant workers who are ready to accept low wages and also criminal uprisings and riots in the country as these tend to promote fear and threat to the national security.