Human Security: Concept and Critiques Flashcards
2 definitions of security
- “A speech act [that] moves the particular case into a specific area; claiming a special right to use the means necessary to block this development.”
- “measures the absence of threats to acquire values.. and the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.”
2 important things to remember about security
- prefixes and referent object are very important
- can be defined negatively or positively, using an external element or it can be more ephemeral or about groups with a state
What are the Three Dimensions of Security?
referent object, nature of the threat, means to attain security
Lockean concept of security
State doesn’t see freedom as a threat, state is established to protect our freedom from others
maximalist state
- preserve the state to give other forms of security
- The state is something of its own, not just created by individuals, doesn’t matter if clash between state and citizens
Thomas Hobbes
- ideal state has a monopoly on force due to the state of nature= chief threat to individual security is freedom
- So need to agree to a covenant amongst members of a state to protect each individual from the violence of others
Barry Buzan
- key in redefining security
- argues that we are trapped in te idea of needing the state to protect itself from the international realm- to ensure its people are secure. This is not necessary.
- argues that state isn’t the only referent object as it lives in tension with people’s lives
- HS good as it reduces the risk of reductionism
Examples of Buzan’s nonmilitary threats
- Political (stability, regime)
- Economic (access to resources, finance, welfare)
- Societal (cultural, language, identity, custom)
- Envionmental
Minimalist state
State not much more than the sum of its parts, clashes between state and citizens should be avoided; national and international security all about individual security
What are the 2 possible ways to determine between minimalist and maximalist states in reality?
- civil disorder
- dispropotionate security appartus
4 categories of threats individuals might face from the state according to Buzan
- domestic law making and enforcement
- administrative or political action by the state against individuals or groups
- struggles over control of the state machinery
- that states external policies
3 key points from Buzan reading
- individual security distinct but still subordinate to the higher level structures
- individual security affected positively and negatively by the state
- Individual pursuit of security can affect the security of the state
4 key points about human security
- state can be a threat
- the individual is the referent object
- looks at non-military threats that can affect people and by extension the state in which they live in
- considers non-military solutions to non-military problems
What are the Two key debates regarding Human Security?
- How broad should it be? What is too broad to be useful?
- Is the concept useful, radical or ‘safe’?
1970s oil shocks
Key in the formation of Human security and making people think about energy security and the economic links
1983 Palme Commission
Formed the concept of “common security”
Japanese Government and HS
-use the concept ‘comprehensive security’ meaning “all measures that threaten human survival”
Canadian government and HS
-use the concept “cooperative security” meaning “freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights, safety or lives
1994 UN Human Development report
-“The concept of security must change- from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater stress on people’s security through armaments to security through human development, from territorial security to food, employment and environmental security.”
Roland Paris definition of human security
“…safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease, and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the matters of daily life-whether in homes, jobs or communities.”
Roland Paris
- argues that the definition of HS makes it difficult to set a policy agenda-> if everything is important then nothing is
- ambiguity used to securitise and convey urgency to get resources etc
- does HS have any practical use for academic research or government policy making
- don’t need to treat everything equally-> this is the big trap that HS has fallen into
According to Roland Paris what is the challenge with HS for policy makers and academics
to move beyond the all-encompassing and focus on specific solutions to specific political issues/ no clear direction as to what academics should be studying
What does Roland Paris suggest should be done with Human Security?
-Use it as a broader category of research within security studies that is primarily concerned with non-military threats to safety of societies, groups, and individuals as this would be less encumbered by political terminology
Name the 7 facets of Human Security
- economic security (freedom from poverty)
- Food security
- Health security (freedom from disease
- Environmental security (freedom from pollution, depletion)
- Personal security (physical threats)
- Community security (cultures, ethnicity)
- Political security (civil rights, freedom from oppression)
Freedom from Fear approach to Human Security
- focus on organized violence, conflict and identifying the perpetrator
- aims to restrain violence in conflict and promote new behaviour norms
- distinction between combatants and non key
- Canada and Norway key
Examples of Freedom from fear approach measures
- R2P
- ICC
- ICJ
- NATO
- Soverignty as responsibility
Examples of Freedom from fear approach instruments
Peacebuilding architecture, Kimberly process, Land-mines treaty
4 critiques of the Freedom from fear approach
- nothing exists to hold individuals/states accountable
- Does this truly capture environmental threats like CC
- too narrowly focused on violent conflict and ignores the wider threats are potentially more deadly
- violence not the only issue
Freedom from want model
- about people, not states, focuses on non-military threats and peace dividends; e.g. economic, food, environmental, job, health security
- “Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives”
4 instruments of the Freedom from want model
- redistribution of wealth
- increased humanitarian and development assistance
- the shift from armaments to sustainable development
- MDGs/SDGs
Four critiques of the freedom from want model
- kitchen sink theory= prioritization: if its everything its nothing
- dangers of securitising these issues i.e. development
- What about causal confusion e.g. Climate Change
- Can’t assume that changing the referent object will make people change their approach
David Chandler
- Argues that HS is not the paradigm we think as by securitising development we reinforce old state structures (rhetorical dimensions)
- freedom from fear is dangerous as can undermine what meant to defend
- better to remove the paradigms and just get on with it
Why does Chandler argue that HS approaches have been so “easily and willingly integrated into the mainstream”?
because they have
- Sought to exaggerate new post-CW security threats
- locate these threats in the developing world
- facilitate short-term policy making in the absence of clear strategic policy visions
Taylor Owen
- HS= a broad theoretical church- not a critical project, it doesn’t need to be- nor ever meant to be- a critique of realism or state-centric security approaches
- HS not necessarily tainted by convergence with national security interests
Taylor Owen on HS exagerating new post-Cold War security threats
- most security threats that have been magnified since the end of the cold war have been traditional rather than human in nature
- WMDs, terrorism, 9/11
Taylor Owen on threats being located in the developing world
- this is where threats are most severe
- it is an empirical reality not an ideologically driven theory
Taylor Owen on HS facilitating Short term policy in absences of clear FP visions
definitions should treat all threats to individuals objectively and prioritise FP on an objective assessment of threat severity. This is the opposite of what Chandler suggests
Trumps Budget
- The anti-HS budget as it sees security as a physical threat with a military solution
- Dollar for dollar cut to the human security approach
- strategic interest vs greatest need
What percentage of a cut in budget does Trump’s Budget propose for US diplomacy and foreign aid?
-28% cut particularly targeted at teh UN, Climate Change, and cultural exchange programs
What percentage reduction does Trump’s budget propose for USAID?
28%
How much of an increase in military spending does Trump’s budget propose?
$54 million
What does Trumps budget eliminate?
The US Global Climate Change Initiative
5 key arguments against Trump’s Budget?
- the budget makes people’s everyday lives harder -> this will backfire
- Takes a clean up the mess approach rather than dealing with the potential causes of future conflict
- development aid creates viable markets to trade with, by stopping this you consequently limit your own economic opportunities
- Short term approach that will be detrimental long terms
- lays the ground for an internal insurgence
