Individuals as subjects of security

The most interesting thing I have learnt over the course of 4 weeks has been the concept of ‘Human Security’ and its emergence as a theoretical perspective and operational framework for foreign policy problems in the Post-Cold War era. My Learning Journal will proceed in 3 parts in order to express my understanding of this framework. I will first examine the security landscape of Human Security and how it challenges orthodox conceptions of international security in terms of whose security and what is being secured against. The perspective although enhancing contemporary analyses of global security issues, is not without criticism thus I will then explore major critiques to this approach to international security. I will then express my understanding of the future of Human Security as a critical discourse and draw upon the prospect of reconceptualization. My exploration of Human Security through the lecture and reading materials essentially links me to learning outcome number 4; namely an evaluation of international politics from the theoretically grounded perspective of Human Security.

Background

In the 1990s consensus emerged within policy and academic circles for the need to focus on individuals as subjects of security, with attention directed to a wider spectrum of security threats within and outside the state. Under this approach security policy and analysis shifted towards refocusing individuals as primary referents and benefactors with an emphasis on ‘protection against threats to human life and well being’[1]. At its core human security has moved notions beyond military and territorial security to broader conceptions of development and human rights. The lecture detailed the emergence of the concept of Human security within the UN’s 1994 Human Development Report[2]. The report identified seven specific elements that compromise human security namely: food, health, economic, community, and environmental, personal and political security. The report essentially denoted that the politics of security had been too narrowly interpreted and it should be widened to not only ‘the security of borders [but] also the security of people’s lives’[3]. In this context and as explored in the lecture on slide 24[4], the UN Commission on Human Security[5] further defined Human security to meaning the ‘protection of fundamental freedoms and protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations’[6]. As expressed by (Booth, 2007)[7] ‘human security has taken on the image of the velvet glove on the iron hand of hard power’[8]. Thus in my opinion the most notable tenant of Human Security is its engagement with principles of freedom from want and fear, chronic threats such as disease as well as sudden threats from violence and use of force.

Critique

Whilst exploring the background of Human Security, the lecture touched upon the notion that conceptions to it were ‘loose vague and of little analytical utility and coherence’^[9]. In seeking more detail about the critiques of Human Security I referred to the set reading material ‘A more secure world: Our shared responsibility[10]’ which used the example of 11 September 2001 to express that whilst the United Nations created the notion of Human Security, it had proved ‘poorly equipped to providing it’[11]. Although the UN has largely embraced a holistic version of human security other organizations have competing visions, where scholars in the 1990s to early 2000’s debated a ‘narrow’ conception versus a ‘broad’ approach to security[12]. These competing visions have led to the creation of a long list of what constitutes human security. What would have been helpful in exploring these debates and the recent shift would be if a variety of recent articles had been provided, which emphasize the transformative and emancipatory content of Human Security.

Theories

Whilst Human security has limitations it does offer important counter discourse to militarized state control approaches. This was expressed to me in the lectures through the exploration of different International Relations theories applied to Human Security. From a Critical Theory perspective, Human Security assists policy makers to confront ingrained ideas of the state as a primary reference and provider of security. Through Critical Theory, the lecture also briefly touched upon reference to the emancipation of security (SAE) as being a tenant to human security. This allowed me to draw links between Security as emancipation and the Human Security agenda where although this was not drawn upon in readings or lectures the similarity became apparent to me. Despite ostensible differences, the ultimate concerns of SAE can be described as human security ones and the political goals of human security have used the concept of emancipation. Further the benefits of Human Security were implicitly referred to in the lecture, where Human Security was described to be largely promoted by liberal policy makers, with reference again to institutions like the UN that have broader international processes of global interventionism.

Reconceptualization

Gaps in my understanding regarding Human Security however arise at the prospects of possibly conceptualizing human security. (Beeson and Bellamy, 2003) argue for the concept that human security is stable enough to be focused upon as opposed to state security, since issues such as poverty and people’s own states are drawn upon[13]. Whilst (United Nations, 2004) fashion for a more collective approach to overall security. Therefore, I am still debating what approach would be best for Human Security to exceed as a political tool and analytical research concept, and whether it should be understood in ‘less terms of a “security development nexus” and more as a holistic concept with transformative potential.

Essentially the notion of Human Security particularly stood out to me as being an interesting and developing concept. Engagement with the lecture and reading materials has essentially expanded my knowledge of the history of this framework and its influence through theoretical perspectives. Whilst I still have queries regarding the concept, I believe that my exploration of key ideas and debates has allowed me to engage well with learning outcome number 4.

Word Count:

924 words

References

Australian Government Department of Defence, (2013). Defence White Paper 2013. p.60.

Beeson, M. and Bellamy, A. (2003). Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September. Australian Journal of Politics \& History, 49(3), pp.339--354.

Browning, C. and McDonald, M. (2013). The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), pp.235--255.

Clapton, W. (2014). ARTS1811 Lecture A Mon 14:00.

Jacob, C. (2014). Practising civilian protection: Human security in Myanmar and Cambodia. Security Dialogue, 45(4), pp.391--408.

Mansbach, R. and Rafferty, K. (2007). Introduction to Global Politics in a Complex World. 1st ed. Longman Publishing, p.596.

UNDP, (1994). Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/ hdr_1994_en_chap2.pdf.

UNITED NATIONS, (2004). A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. United Nations Foundation, pp.9-19.

[1] Mansbach, R. and Rafferty, K. (2007). Introduction to Global Politics in a Complex World. 1st ed. Longman Publishing, p.596.

[2] UNDP ( 1994 ) ‘ Human Development Report ’. Online available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/

hdr_1994_en_chap2.pdf

[3] Ibid, p23.

[4] Clapton, W. (2014). ARTS1811 Lecture A Mon 14:00.

[5] Commission on Human Security (CHS) (2003) Human Security Now , New York : Commission on Human

Security. Online available at: <http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/

data/01077/_res/id=sa_File1/>

[6] Ogata , S. ( 2003 ) ‘ Human Security and State Security ’, Human Security Now . Final Report from the

UN Commission on Human Security. Online available at: <http://www.humansecurity- chs.org/

fi nalreport/index.html>

[7] Booth K (2007) Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[8] Browning, C. and McDonald, M. (2013). The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), pp.244.

^[9] Above n4.

[10] United Nations, (2004). A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. United Nations Foundation, pp.9-1

[11] Ibid, p13.

[12] Browning, C. and McDonald, M. (2013). The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), pp.237.

[13] Beeson, M. and Bellamy, A. (2003). Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September. Australian Journal of Politics \& History, 49(3), pp.346.