Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air

8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air

1/17

Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?Author(s): Roland ParisSource: International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall, 2001), pp. 87-102Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123.

Accessed: 21/09/2013 09:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Security.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/17

Human

Security

Roland

aris

Paradigm

Shift r

Hot

Air?

Human

security

is

the atest

n

a

long

line

of

neologisms-including

common

security, lobal

se-

curity, ooperative

security,

nd

comprehensive

ecurity-that encourage pol-

icymakers

and scholars to

think

about international

ecurity

s

something

more

than the

military

defense of state interests nd

territory. lthough

definitions

f human

security

ary,

most

formulations

mphasize

the welfare

of

ordinarypeople. Among

the most vocal

promoters

f human

security

re

thegovernments fCanada and Norway,whichhave takenthe ead in estab-

lishing

a "human

security

network"

of

statesand

nongovernmental

rganiza-

tions

NGOs)

thatendorse the

concept.'

The termhas also

begun

to

appear

in

academic

works,2

nd is the

subject

of new research

projects

t

several

major

universities.3

RolandParis

s Assistant

rofessor

f

Political cience nd nternational

ffairs

t

the

Universityf

Colo-

rado,

Boulder.

My

thanks

to Michael

Barnett,

rancis

Beer,

Stephen

Brooks,

Steve

Chan,

Claudio

Cioffi,

aniel

Drezner,Colin Dueck,Natalie Goldring, an Hurd,PeterViggoJakobsen, avid Leblang,Daniel

Lindley,

Michael

Lipson,

and

Thomas

Weiss for

omments

n

previous

drafts.

An earlier

version

of this

articlewas

presented

to the

oint

meeting

of

the

nternational

ecurity

nd Arms

Control

sectionof the AmericanPoliticalScience Association

nd

the nternational

ecurity

tudies

section

of

the

nternational tudies Association

n

Denver,

Colorado

(November

9-11, 2000),

and at the

an-

nual

conference

f the

nternational tudies Association

n

Chicago,

llinois

February

0-24,

2001).

1.

Other

states

n

the network nclude

Austria,Chile, Greece, reland,

Jordan,

Mali,

the

Nether-

lands, Slovenia,

Switzerland,

nd

Thailand.

See "Chairman's

Summary,"

econd Ministerial

Meet-

ing

of

the

Human

Security

Network,

Lucerne,

Switzerland,

May

11-12, 2000,

http://www.dfait-

maeci.gc.ca/foreignp/humansecurity/Chairman_summary-e.asp

accessed

on

February

4,2001).

2.

For

example,

Yuen

Foong

Khong,

"Human

Security:

A

Shotgun Approach

to

Alleviating

Hu-

man

Misery?"

Global

Governance,

ol.

7,

No.

3

(July-September

001);

Oliver

Richmond,

Human

Security,

he Rule ofLaw,' and NGOs: Potentials nd ProblemsforHumanitarian ntervention,"

Human

Rights

Review,

ol.

2,

No. 4

(July-September

001);

Astri

uhrke,

Human

Security

nd

the

Interests f

States,"

Security

ialogue,

Vol.

30,

No.

3

(September

999),

pp.

265-276;

Peter

toett,

u-

man nd Global

ecurity:

n

Exploration

f

Terms

Toronto:

University

f

Toronto

Press,

1999);

Caro-

line Thomas

and

Peter

Wilkin, eds., Globalization,

uman

Security,

nd the

African xperience

(Boulder,

Colo.:

Lynne

Rienner,1999);

Jorge

Nef,

Human

Security

nd Mutual

Vulnerability:

he

GlobalPolitical

conomy fDevelopment

nd

Underdevelopment,

d ed.

(Ottawa:

International evel-

opment

Research

Centre, 999);

Majid

Tehranian,

d.,

Worlds

part:

Human

Security

nd GlobalGov-

ernance

London:

I.B.

Tauris,

1999);

Heather

Owens

and

Barbara

Arneil,

"The Human

Security

Paradigm

Shift:

A

New Lens on Canadian

ForeignPolicy? Report

of the

University

f British o-

lumbia

Symposium

on Human

Security,"

bid.,

pp.

1-12;

Ramesh

Thakur,

The United Nations

and Human

Security,"

bid.,

pp.

51-60;

and

TatsuroMatsumae and L.C.

Chen,

eds.,

Common ecu-

rity

n Asia:

New

Concept

f

Human

Security

Tokyo:

Tokai

University

ress,

1995).

3. These includeHarvardUniversity's rogramon Human Security,heUniversity f Denver's

International

ecurity,

ol.

26,

No.

2

(Fall

2001),

pp.

87-102

?

2001

by

the President nd Fellows of

Harvard

College

and the

Massachusetts nstitute

f

Technology.

87

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

International

ecurity

6:2

1

88

Some commentators

rgue

thathuman

security

epresents

new

paradigm

for

cholars

and

practitioners

like.

Despite

these

claims, however,

t

remains

unclear

whether he

concept

of

human

security

an serve as a

practicalguide

for

cademic

research

r

governmental olicymaking.

As

Daniel

Deudney

has

written

n

another

context,

Not all

neologisms

are

equally plausible

or use-

ful."4Two

problems,

n

particular,

imit

the usefulness

of the

human

security

concept

for tudents nd

practitioners

f

international

olitics.

First,

he

con-

cept

lacks

a

precise

definition.

Human

security

s like "sustainable

develop-

ment"-everyone

is for

t,

but few

people

have a clear idea of what itmeans.

Existing

definitions

f

human

security

end to be

extraordinarily xpansive

and

vague, encompassing everything

rom

physical security

o

psychological

well-being,

which

provides policymakers

with

ittle

uidance

in

the

prioritiza-

tion

of

competing

policy goals

and academics little ense of

what,

exactly,

s to

be studied.

Second,

the

most

ardentbackers

of human

security ppear

to have an

inter-

est

n

keeping

the term

xpansive

and

vague.

The

idea

of human

security

s the

glue

that

holds

together

jumbled

coalition of "middle

power"

states,

devel-

opment gencies, nd NGOs-all ofwhich seek to shift ttention nd resources

away

from onventional

ecurity

ssues

and

toward

goals

that

have

tradition-

ally

fallen

under the rubricof international

evelopment.

As a

unifying

on-

cept

for

this

coalition,

human

security

s

powerful precisely

because it lacks

precision

nd

thereby

ncompasses

the diverse

perspectives

nd

objectives

of

all the membersof the coalition.

The

term,

n

short,

ppears

to be

slipperyby

design.

Cultivated

ambiguity

rendershuman

security

n effective

ampaign

slogan,

but it

also

diminishes

he

concept's

usefulness s

a

guide

for cademic

research

or

policymaking.

This is notto say thathumansecuritys merely hot air" or emptyrhetoric.

The

political

coalition

that now uses human

security

s

a

rallying

cry

has

chalked

up significant

ccomplishments,

ncluding

the

signing

of an

anti-

personnel

land

mines convention

and the

imminent reation

of an interna-

tional criminal

ourt.

The alliance of some states

and

advocacy groups

has al-

tered the

andscape

of

international

olitics

since

the end of

the

Cold

War,

s

Richard

Price and others have

shown.5 But to

say

that

human

security

has

Graduate

School of nternational

tudies,

the

University

f New South

Wales's Asia-Australia

n-

stitute,nd theUniversity f BritishColumbia's Institute f International elations.

4.

Daniel

Deudney,

"Environment nd

Security:

Muddled

Thinking,"

Bulletin

f

the

Atomic cien-

tists,

Vol.

47,

No. 3

(April

1991),

p.

23.

5.

Richard

Price,

Reversing

he Gun

Sights:

Transnational

ivil

SocietyTargets

and

Mines,"

In-

ternational

rganization,

ol.

52,

No. 3

(Summer

1998),

pp.

613-644;

and

Craig

Warkentin

nd Karen



4/17

Human

Security

89

served as an effective

allying ry

s

different

rom

laiming

hat he

concept

of-

fers a useful framework

or

analysis,

as some

of its

proponents

maintain.6

Campaign slogans

can

be

consequential

without

being

well defined.The

im-

pact

of

Lyndon

Johnson's

Great

Society

rhetoric,

or

example,

was

arguably

significant-serving

s

a

focal

point

for

political

upporters

f

his reformisto-

cial

agenda-but

the exact

meaning

of the

term

great

society"

was obscure.

Similarly,

ne

can

support

the

political goals

of

the

human

security

oalition

while

recognizing

hat

the idea of human

security

tself

s a

muddle.

This article

proceeds

as follows.

First,

examine

existing

definitions f hu-

man

security.

econd,

I

explore

the limits of human

security

s a

practical

guide

for cademic research nd

policymaking.

hird,

examine recent fforts

to narrow the definition f human

security.

ourth,

consider

ways

in

which

the

concept might, espite

its

imitations,

make a contribution o the

study

of

international elations nd

security.

What s Human

Security?

The firstmajorstatement oncerning umansecurity ppeared in the1994Hu-

man

Development

eport,

n

annual

publication

of

the United

Nations

Develop-

ment

Programme

UNDP).

"The

concept

of

security,"

he

report rgues,

"has

for too

long

been

interpreted

arrowly:

s

security

f

territory

rom xternal

aggression,

r as

protection

f

national nterests

n

foreign olicy

or

as

global

security

rom he

threat f nuclear

holocaust....Forgotten

ere the

legitimate

concerns f

ordinary

eople

who

sought ecurity

n their

aily

ives."7

This

cri-

tique

is

clear and

forceful,

ut

the

report's ubsequent

proposal

for new

con-

cept

of

security-human security-lacks

precision:

"Human

security

an be

said to have two mainaspects. tmeans, first,afety rom uch chronic hreats

as

hunger,

isease and

repression.

And

second,

t

means

protection

rom

ud-

den and

hurtful

isruptions

n

the

patterns

f

daily

life-whether

n

homes,

n

jobs

or

in

communities."8

he

scope

of

this

definition s vast:

Virtually ny

kind

of

unexpected

or

irregular

discomfort ould

conceivably

constitute

threat

o

one's human

security. erhaps anticipating

his

criticism,

he

authors

Mingst,

"International

nstitutions,

he

State,

and Global Civil

Society

n

the

Age

of

the

World

Wide

Web,"

Global

Governance,

ol.

6,

No.

2

(April-June

000),

pp.

237-257.

6. Laura Reed and Majid Tehranian, Evolving SecurityRegimes," in Tehranian,WorldsApart,

p.

35.

7.

United

Nations

Development Programme,

Human

Development eport,

994

New

York:Oxford

University

ress,

1994),

p.

22.

8.

Ibid.,

p.

23.



5/17

International

ecurity

6:2

190

of the

report dentify

even

specific

lements

hat

omprise

human

security:

1)

economic

ecurity

e.g.,

freedom rom

overty);

2)

food

security e.g.,

access

to

food);

(3)

health

security e.g.,

access to

health

care and

protection

romdis-

eases);

(4)

environmental

ecurity e.g., protection

rom uch

dangers

as

envi-

ronmental

ollution

and

depletion);

5)

personal security e.g., physical

safety

from uch

things

s

torture, ar,

criminal

ttacks,

omestic

violence,

drug

use,

suicide,

and even

traffic

ccidents);

6)

community

ecurity e.g.,

survival

of

traditional

ultures nd ethnic

groups

as well as the

physical security

f

these

groups);

and

(7)

political security e.g., enjoyment

f civil and

political rights,

and freedom rom

political oppression).

This list s so broad that t is

difficult

to determine

what,

f

anything,might

be

excluded from he definition f

hu-

man

security.

ndeed the drafters f the

report

eem

distinctly

ninterested

n

establishing ny

definitional

oundaries.

Instead

they

make a

point

of

com-

mending

the

"all-encompassing"

nd

"integrative"

ualities

of the human se-

curityconcept,

which

they apparently

view

as

among

the

concept's major

strengths.9

Today

the UNDP's

1994

definition f human

security

remains the most

widely cited and "most authoritative" ormulation f the term,10lthough

differentmembers

of

the human

security

coalition have customized the

definition o suittheir wn

particular

nterests.

ccording

o

the

government

f

Japan,

for

example,

the

concept

of human

security

comprehensively

overs

all the measures that threatenhuman

survival,

daily

life,

and

dignity-for

example,

environmental

degradation,

violations of human

rights,

transna-

tional

organized

crime,

llicit

drugs, refugees,

poverty, nti-personnel

and-

mines and...infectiousdiseases such

as AIDS-and

strengthens

fforts o

confront hese

threats."'l

Other

states,

uch as

Canada,

have

promoted

more

restrictive efinition fhumansecurity s "freedomfrom ervasivethreats o

people's

rights, safety

or lives."12

But even this

slightly

narrower

con-

9.

Ibid.,

p.

24.

10.

John

G.

Cockell,

"Conceptualising

Peacebuilding:

Human

Security

nd Sustainable

Peace,"

in

Michael

Pugh,

ed.,

Regeneration

f

War-Tornocieties

London:

Macmillan, 2000),

p.

21.

11.

JapaneseMinistry

f

Foreign

Affairs,

iplomatic

luebook,

999,

chap.

2,

sec.

3.

See also "State-

ment

by

Director-General ukio Takasu

at

the

nternational

onference n

Human

Security

n a

Globalized

World,"

Ulan

Bator,

May

8,

2000.

Both

documents re

reproduced

on the

Japanese

for-

eign

ministry's

web site

at

http://www.mofa.go.jp

accessed

on

February

14,

2001).

12.

Canadian

foreignministry

eb

site:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreignp/humansecurity/

menu-e.asp

accessed

on

February

14,

2001).

See also

the

statement

y

former anadian

Foreign

Minister loyd Axworthy,Canada and Human Security: he Need forLeadership," nternational

Journal,

ol.

52,

No. 2

(Spring

1997),

pp.

183-196.

Since

eaving

his

post

as

foreign

minister

n

2000,

Axworthy

as continued o

espouse

the

concept

of human

security;

ee

Lloyd Axworthy,

Human

Security

nd Global Governance:

Putting

People

First,"

Global

Governance,

ol.

7,

No.

1

(January-

March

2001),

pp.

19-23.



6/17

Human

Security

91

ceptualization

of

human

security

s

sweeping

and

open-ended: Among

other

things,

he

Canadian formulation ncludes

safety

from

physical

threats,

he

achievementof an

acceptable

quality

of

life,

guarantee

of fundamental

hu-

man

rights,

he rule of

aw,

good governance,

ocial

equity,

rotection

f civil-

ians

in

conflicts,

nd sustainable

development.13

Meanwhile the human

security

etwork-which,

n

addition to

Canada,

Norway,

nd

Japan,

ncludes

several other tates

and

a

broad

assortment

f

international

GOs-has com-

mitted

tself

o the

goal

of

"strengthening

uman

security

with a view

to creat-

ing

a more humaneworldwhere

people

can live in

security

nd

dignity,

ree

fromwant and

fear,

nd with

equal

opportunities

o

develop

their

human

po-

tential

o the full."14 he sentiments mbodied

in

these

statements

re honor-

able,

but

they

do

little to

clarify

he

meaning

or

boundaries

of the human

security oncept.

Some academic

writings

n the

subject

have been

similarly

paque.

Many

works amount

to

restatements r revisionsof

the

UNDP's

laundry

ist

of

hu-

man

security

ssues.

Jorge

Nef,

for

example,

devises a fivefold lassification

scheme,

arguing

that

human

security

omprises

1)

environmental,

ersonal,

and physicalsecurity,2) economicsecurity,3) social security,ncluding free-

dom fromdiscrimination ased on

age, gender, thnicity,

r

social

status,"

4)

political security,

nd

(5)

cultural

ecurity,

r

"the set of

psychological

orienta-

tions of

society

geared

to

preserving

nd

enhancing

the

ability

o

controlun-

certainty

nd fear."15 aura

Reed

and

Majid

Tehranian

offer

heirown list of

human

security's

en constituent

lements-including psychological

security,

which

"hinges

on

establishing

onditions

fostering espectful,oving,

nd

hu-

mane

interpersonal

elations,"

nd communication

ecurity,

r

the

mportance

of "freedom and balance

in

information lows."16Other scholars avoid

the

laundrylist approach,but offer qually expansive definitions.Accordingto

Caroline

Thomas,

human

security

refers

o the

provision

of "basic material

needs" and the

realization

of "human

dignity," ncluding emancipation

from

oppressive

power

structures-be

they

global,

national,

or

local

in

origin

and

scope."17

For Robert

Bedeski,

human

security

ncludes "the

totality

f knowl-

edge, technology,

nstitutions nd activities hat

protect,

efend

and

preserve

the

biological

existence of human

life;

and the

processes

which

protect

nd

13.

Axworthy,

Canada and Human

Security,"

.

184.

14. "Chairman's Summary," econd MinisterialMeetingof the Human SecurityNetwork.

15.

Nef,

Human

Security

nd

Mutual

Vulnerability,.

25.

16. Reed and

Tehranian,

Evolving Security

Regimes," pp.

39

and

47.

17.

Caroline

Thomas, "Introduction,"

n

Thomas

and

Wilkin,Globalization,

uman

Security,

nd the

African xperience, .

3.



7/17

International

ecurity

6:2

92

perfect

ollective

peace

and

prosperity

o enhance human freedom."18

gain,

f

human

security

s all these

things,

what is

it not?

A

Guide

for

Research nd

Policymaking?

Policymakers

nd

scholars face

different,

ut

related,

problems

n

attempting

to

put

these definitions f human

security

nto

practical

use. For

policymakers,

the

challenge

s to move

beyond all-encompassing

xhortations nd

to

focus

on

specific

olutions to

specific

political

ssues. This is a difficultask not

only

because

of the broad

sweep

and definitional

lasticity

f most formulations f

human

security

but

also-and

perhaps

even more

problematically-because

the

proponents

f human

security

re

typically

eluctant o

prioritize

he

um-

ble of

goals

and

principles

hatmake

up

the

concept.

As noted

above,

part

of

the ethicof the human

security

movement s

to

emphasize

the "inclusiveness"

and

"holism" of the

term,

which

n

practice

eems to mean

treating

ll interests

and

objectives

within

he movement s

equally

valid.

Reed

and

Tehranian,

or

instance,

fter

resenting

heir ist of ten constituent

ategories

f human secu-

rity,onclude with this caveat: "It is important o reiterate hattheseoverlap-

ping categories

do

not

represent

hierarchy

f

security

eeds from

ersonal

to

national, nternational,

nd

environmental

ights.

On the

contrary,

ach

realm

impinges upon

the

others

nd is

intrinsically

onnectedto

wider

political

and

economic considerations."19

he observation

that

all human and natural

realms are

fundamentally

nterrelated

s a

truism,

nd does not

provide

a

very

convincing

ustification

or

treating

ll

needs, values,

and

policy

objectives

s

equally important.

Nor does it

help

decisionmakers

n

their

daily

task

of

allo-

cating

scarce resources

mong competinggoals:

After

ll,

not

everything

an

be a matter fnationalsecurity, ithall of theurgency hatthisterm mplies.

To

put

it

simply,

human

security

is

too

broad and

vague

a

concept

to be

meaningful

or

policymakers,

s

it

has come

to

entail such a wide

range

of dif-

ferent hreats

n one

hand,

while

prescribing

diverse and sometimes ncom-

patible

set of

policy

solutions

to

resolve them

on the

other."20

For those who

study,

ather han

practice,

nternational

olitics,

he

task of

transforming

he dea of human

security

nto

a

useful

analytical

ool

for

chol-

18.

Robert

Bedeski,

"Human

Security,

Knowledge,

and the Evolution

of

the Northeast Asian

State,"

Centre for Global

Studies,

University

of

Victoria,

February

8,

2000,

http://

www.globalcentres.org/docs/bedeski.htmlaccessed on February14,2001).

19.

Reed and

Tehranian,

Evolving Security

Regimes," p.

53.

20.

Owens and

Arneil,

The Human

SecurityParadigm

Shift,"

.

2.



8/17

Human

Security

93

arly

research

s also

problematic.

Given

the

hodgepodge

of

principles

nd ob-

jectives

ssociated

with the

concept,

t

s far

from

lear what academics should

even be

studying.

Human

security

eems

capable

of

supportingvirtually

ny

hypothesis-along

with ts

opposite-depending

on the

prejudices

and inter-

ests of the

particular

esearcher.

urther,

ecause the

concept

of human

secu-

rity ncompasses

both

physical security

nd

more

general

notions of

social,

economic,

ultural,

nd

psychologicalwell-being,

t s

impractical

o

talk about

certain ocioeconomic factors

causing"

an

increase or decline

in

human

secu-

rity,

iven

that hese factors re themselves

part

of the definition fhumanse-

curity.

The

study

of

causal

relationships requires

a

degree

of

analytical

separation

that the

notion of human

security

acks.21

To

illustrate hese

problems,

onsider

John

Cockell's

efforts

o

apply

the hu-

man

security oncept

to the

phenomenon

of

nternational

eacebuilding oper-

ations

in

countries

t risk

of

slipping

nto,

or

just

emerging

from,

ivil

war.22

After

mbracing

he

open-ended

UNDP definition f human

security,

ockell

states

that

"peacebuilding

s a sustained

process

of

preventing

nternal hreats

to

human

security

rom

ausing protracted,

iolentconflict."23

et because the

UNDP definition f human securityncludes safety rom iolenceas a central

component

of

human

security,

ockell

is

effectivelyaying

that

peacebuilding

seeks to

prevent

decline

n

human

security

rom

ausing

a decline

n

human

security,

hich

makes

little

ense. He

then

dentifies

fourbasic

parameters,"

based on the

principles

of

human

security,

or

the

conduct

of

peacebuilding

operations:

Peacebuilders

should

focus on root causes of

conflicts,

ay

atten-

tion to the

differences

n

local conditionsfrom

ne

operation

to

the

next,

eek

sustainable nd durable

results,

nd

mobilize ocal

actors

nd

resources

n

sup-

port

of

peace.

Although

these

guidelines

seem

reasonable,

the

sprawling

con-

cept of human securitycould support many more-and quite different-

principles

for

peacebuilding.

Indeed

Cockell himself

cknowledges

that his

policy

prescriptions

re

"arbitrary,"

hich

belies the

notion thathuman secu-

rity

entails

a

particular

"orientation" toward

peacebuilding,

as Cockell

claims.24More

generally,

f

human

security

means

almost

anything,

hen t

ef-

fectively

means

nothing.25

21. Suhrke

makes a similar

point

n

"Human

Security

nd the

nterests

f

States,"

pp.

270-271.

22.

Cockell,

"Conceptualising Peacebuilding."

23.

Ibid.,

p.

21.

24.

Ibid.,

pp.

26,

21.

25. On the

problem

of

"conceptual stretching,"

ee GiovanniSartori,

Concept

Misinformationn

Comparative

Politics,"

American olitical

cience

Review,

ol.

64,

No.

4

(December

1970),

pp.

1033-

1053.



9/17

International

ecurity

6:2 94

Attempts

o

Narrow he

Concept

One

possible remedy

for he

expansiveness

and

vagueness

of human

security

is

to

redefine he

concept

n

much

narrower nd more

precise

terms,

o

that

t

might

ffer

better

uide

for

research

nd

policymaking.

his is the

approach

that

Gary King

and

Christopher

Murray

have

adopted

in

their

ngoing project

on human

security.26

ing

and

Murray

offer definition

f human

security

that s intended

to

include

only

"essential"

elements,

meaning

elements

that

are

"important nough

for human

beings

to

fight

ver or to

put

their ives

or

property

t

great

risk."27

sing

this

standard,

hey dentify

ive

key

ndica-

tors of

well-being-poverty,

health,

ducation,

political

freedom,

nd democ-

racy-that they

intend to

incorporate

nto an

overall

measure of

human

security

or ndividuals

and

groups. Similarly,

nother

scholar,

Kanti

Bajpai,

proposes

construction

f

a

"human

security

udit" that would include mea-

sures

of "direct nd indirect

hreats

o

individual

bodily safety

nd

freedom,"

as well as measures of different

ocieties'

"capacity

to

deal

with

these

threats,

namely,

the

fostering

f

norms,

nstitutions,

nd

. .

.

representativeness

n

decisionmakingstructures."28 lthoughboth projectsare still in the early

stages

of

development, heyrepresent

welcome effortst

operationalizing

he

concept

of human

security

with a

more

precise

definition f the term.

A

clear

measure or audit of human

security

would allow scholars to

assess the factors

that ead to declines or increases

n the

human

security

f

particular

roups

or

individuals.29

Both of these

projects,

however,

face

problems

that seem endemic

to

the

study

of

human

security.

irst,

hey

dentify

ertainvalues as more

mportant

than otherswithout

providing

clear

ustification

or

doing

so.

Bajpai,

for n-

stance,proposes inclusion of "bodily safety" nd "personal freedom" n his

human

security

udit,

and

argues

that

this

audit would draw attention o

the

fact hat threats o

safety

nd freedom re themost

mportant"

lements f

hu-

26.

Gary King

and

Christopher

Murray, Rethinking

uman

Security,"

arvard

University, ay

4,

2000,

http://gking.harvard.edu/files/hs.pdf

accessed

on

February

14,

2001).

27.

Ibid.,

p.

8.

28.

Kanti

Bajpai,

"Human

Security: oncept

and

Measurement,"

Kroc Institute ccasional

Paper

No.

19:OP:1

(Notre

Dame,

Ind.:

University

f Notre

Dame,

August

2000),

http://www.nd.edu/

?krocinst/ocpapers/op_19_1.PDF

accessed

on

February

14,

2001).

29. In addition

to these

projects,

n

January

4, 2001,

the United Nations and the

government

f

Japan

nnounced

plans

to

establish Commission

on Human

Security,

hich will be

cochaired

by

Nobel laureate AmartyaSen and formerUN High Commissioner forHuman RightsSadako

Ogata.

See

"Independent

Panel on Human

Security'

To

Be

Set

Up,"

Agence

France-Press,

anuary

24,

2001.



10/17

Human

Security

95

man

security.30

e does

not

explain,

however,

why

other values are

not

equally,

or

perhaps

even

more,

mportant

han

the

values he

champions.

What

about education?

s the

ability

o choose one's

marriage

partner,

which

is

one

of

Bajpai's examples

of

personal

freedom,

eally

more

important

han,

say,

a

good

education?

Perhaps

t

s,

but

Bajpai

does

not

address

this

ssue.

Similarly,

King

and

Murray

tate thattheir ormulation

f human

security

ncludes

only

those matters hat

people

would be

willing

to

fight

ver.But

theyneglect

o of-

fer

vidence

that

theirfive ndicators

re,

n

fact,

losely

related to the risk of

violent conflict.n other

words,

they

favorcertainvalues as

representative

f

human

security

without

ffering

clear

ustification

or

doing

so.

Additionally,

theirdecision to exclude indicators f violence from

heir

omposite

measure

of human

security

reates a de factodistinction etween human

security

nd

physical security, hereby urging

the

most

familiar onnotation f

security-

safety

rom iolence-from their efinition f human

security.

nder

the

King-

Murray

formulation,

ndividuals could find hemselves

n

the

strangeposition

of

enjoying

a

high

level of human

security

low

poverty,

easonable health

care,

good

education,

political

freedom,

nd

democracy),

while

facing

rela-

tivelyhighriskofbecomingvictims fdeadlyviolence. One need onlythink f

residents

of

certain

neighborhoods

n

Belfast,

who

might

not

consider

them-

selves

very

secure."

Thus

the

challenge

for hese

scholars s

not

simply

o nar-

row the definition

f

human

security

nto a

more

analytically

ractable

oncept,

but to

provide

a

compelling

rationalefor

highlighting

ertainvalues.

This

raises another

problem. Defining

the core

values of

human

security

may

be

difficult ot

only

because

there s so little

greement

n the

meaning

of

human

security,

ut

because the term's

mbiguity

erves

a

particular urpose:

It unites a diverse and sometimes fractious oalition of

states and

organiza-

tions that see an opportunityocapture omeofthe more substantial olitical

interest

nd

superior

financial resources" associated

with

more

traditional,

military onceptions

of

security.31

hese actors have

in

effect

ursued

a

politi-

cal

strategy

f

"appropriating"

the term

"security,"

which

conveys

urgency,

demands

public

attention,

nd

commands

governmental

esources.32

y

main-

30.

Ibid.,

p.

53

(emphasis

added).

31.

King

and

Murray, Rethinking

uman

Security,"

.

4.

See also Mahbub ul

Haq,

Reflections

n

Human

Development,

xp.

ed.

(Delhi:

Oxford

University

ress,

1998).

On

the

strategic

se of

the

term

security"

s

a tool

for

hangingpolicy

or

obtaining

esources,

ee

Emma

Rothschild,

What

Is

Security?"

Dxdalus,

Vol.

124,

No.

3

(Summer

1995),

pp.

58-59.

32. On theurgency hat s automatically ssociatedwith theconceptof nationalsecurity,ee Da-

vid

E.

Sanger,

Sometimes

National

Security

ays

It

All,"

New York

imes,

Week

n

Review,

May

7,

2000,

p.

3.



11/17


12/17


13/17

International

ecurity

6:2 98

Figure

1.

A

Matrix of

Security

Studies

What s the

Source

of

the

Security

Threat?

Military

States

Security

for

Whom?

Societies,

Groups,

nd

Individuals

Military,

onmilitary,

r

Both

Cell

1 Cell 2

National

ecurity

Redefined

ecurity

(conventional

ealist

(e.g.,

environmental

nd

approach

to

security

economic

security)

studies)

Cell

3

Cell

4

Intrastate

ecurity

Human

security

(e.g.,

civilwar,

ethnic

(e.g.,

environmentalnd

conflict,

nd

democide)

economic hreats o

the

survival f

ocieties,

groups,ndindividuals)

tains

four

cells,

each

representing

different

luster f

iterature

n

the field.

assume that

"security

hreat"

onnotes ome

type

of

menace to

survival.

The

top

halfof the

map

includes

works thatfocus on

security

hreats o

states;

the

bottomhalf

omprises

works that onsider

ecurity

hreats o

societies,

groups,

and

individuals. The left ide of the matrix

hows

literature hat focuses on

military

hreats,

nd the

right

ide on

military

r

nonmilitary

hreats,

r

both.

These divisions

produce

the

following

fourfold

ypology f the field:

*

Cell

1

contains

works that

concentrate

n

military

hreats

o the

security

f

states.

Conventional

realists

end

to

adopt

this

perspective,

which has tradi-

tionally

dominated

academic

security

tudies,

particularly

n

the

United

States.39Most of the

articles

published

in International

ecurity,

or

xample,

fall nto

this

category.

39.

See,

for

xample,

Walt,

The Renaissance of

Security

tudies";

Richard

K.

Betts,

Should Stra-

tegic

Studies Survive?"

World

olitics,

ol.

50,

No.

1

(October

1997),

pp.

7-33;

Michael

E.

Brown,

Owen

R.

Cot6, Jr.,

ean

M.

Lynn-Jones,

nd

Steven E.

Miller, ds.,

America's

trategic

hoices,

ev.

ed. (Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press,2000);David A. Baldwin,"Security tudies and theEnd of the

Cold

War,"

World

olitics,

Vol.

48,

No.

1

(October

1995),

pp.

117-141;

and

Joseph

S.

Nye,

Jr.,

nd



14/17

Human

Security

99

*

Cell

2

contains

works

that

ddress

nonmilitary

hreats

instead

of,

r n addi-

tion

to,

military

hreats)

o the national

security

f

states,

ncluding

environ-

mental

and economic

challenges.

Jessica

Tuchman Mathews's

much-cited

1989

article,

Redefining ecurity,"

s

typical

of

this

category.

Mathews

ar-

gues

that

foreign

ecurity olicies

should

incorporate

onsiderations f envi-

ronmental

estruction,

mong

other

hings,

ut she stillconsiders

the

state,

rather

han substate

ctors,

o be the salient

object

of

security.40

ther exam-

ples

of such

work

nclude

the Palme Commission's

1982

report,

ommon e-

curity,

hich

argued

thatnuclear

weapons posed

a threat

o

the survival

of

all

states;41

nvestigations

nto the

relationship

etween environmental

eg-

radation and international

rmed

conflict;42

nd

studies of

foreign

conomic

policy

and international

ecurity.43

*

Cell

3

includes works

that focus on

military

hreats o

actors

other than

states:

namely

ocieties,

roups,

nd

individuals.

The

prevalence

of ntrastate

violence since

the end of the Cold War

has

given

rise to a

large

iterature n

intrastate

onflicts,

n

which substate

groups

are the

principal

belligerents.44

Sean M.

Lynn-Jones,

International

ecurity

tudies:

A

Report

of a

Conference

n the State of the

Field,"

International

ecurity,

ol.

12,

No.

4

(Spring

1988),

pp.

5-27.

40.

Mathews,

"Redefining

Security."

See

also

Ullmann,

"Redefining

Security";

and

Joseph

J.

Romm,

Defining

National

Security:

he

Nonmilitary

spects

New

York:

Council

on

Foreign

Rela-

tions,

1993).

41.

Independent

Commission

on

Disarmament nd

Security

ssues,

Common

ecurity: Blueprint

for

Survival

New

York: Simon

and

Schuster,

982).

42.

See,

for

example,

Thomas

F

Homer-Dixon,Environment,

carcity,

nd Violence

Princeton,

N.J.:

Princeton

University

ress,1999);

and Nils Peter

Gleditsch,

Armed Conflict nd the Environment:

A

Critique

of the

Literature,"

ournal

f

Peace

Research,

ol.

35,

No. 3

(May

1998),

pp.

381-400.

For

an excellent

bibliography,

ee

Geoffrey

.

Dabelko,

ed.,

Environmental

hange

nd

Security

roject

Report,

No. 6

(Summer

2000),

pp.

232-238,

also available

at

http://ecsp.si.edu/pdf/Report6-

10.pdf

accessed

on

May

5,

2001).

43. See, for

xample,

Jean-Marc Blanchard, dwardD. Mansfield, nd NorrinM.

Ripsman,

ds.,

Power

nd the urse:Economic

tatecraft,nterdependence,

nd National

ecurity

London:

Frank

Cass,

2000),

originallypublished

as

a

special

issue of

Security

tudies,

Vol.

9,

Nos.

1-2

(Autumn

1999-

Winter

000),

pp.

1-316;

C.

Fred

Bergsten,

America's Two-Front conomic

Conflict,"

oreignAf-

fairs,

Vol.

80,

No.

2

(March-April

2001),

pp.

16-27;

Richard N.

Haass,

ed.,

Economic anctions nd

American

iplomacy

New

York:

Council

on

Foreign

Relations, 998);

and

Jonathan

irschner,

Po-

litical Economic

in

Security

tudies after

he Cold

War,"

Review

f

nternationalolitical

conomy,

Vol.

5,

No.

1

(Spring

1998),

pp.

64-91.

44.

See,

for

example,

John

Mueller,

"The

Banality

of Ethnic

War,"'

nternational

ecurity,

ol.

25,

No. 1

(Summer

2000),

pp.

42-70;

Benjamin

Valentino,

Final

Solutions:The Causes of

Mass

Killing

and

Genocide,"

Security

tudiesVol.

9,

No. 3

(Spring

2000),

pp.

1-59;

Barbara

F.

Walter

nd

Jack

Snyder,

ds.,

Civil

Wars,

nsecurity,

nd Intervention

New

York:Columbia

University

ress,

1999);

Beverly

Crawford

nd Ronnie

D.

Lipschutz,

eds.,

The

Myth f

Ethnic

Conflict':

olitics, conomics,

and 'Cultural'ViolenceBerkeley: nternational nd Area Studies,University fCalifornia,1998);

Chaim

Kaufmann,

Possible

and

Impossible

Solutions to

EthnicCivil

Wars,"

nternational

ecurity,



15/17

International

ecurity

6:2

|

100

In

addition,

tudies of

"democide,"

or

the

ntentional

illingby

a stateof ts

own

citizens,

lso fall nto this

category.45

*

Cell

4

is concerned

with

military

r

nonmilitary

hreats-or both-to the se-

curity

f

societies,

groups,

and

individuals. Does

poverty,

or

xample,

fuel

violence

within

societies?46 re

certain

types

of

domestic

political

institu-

tionsmore conducive to

domestic

peace?47

s

the

degree

of urbanization f a

society,

r access to

medical

care,

associated

with

the occurrence f civil vio-

lence?48What other

ocietal conditions

pose

a

particular

anger

to

the sur-

vival of

groups

and individuals?All of these

questions

would fall nto the

category

f

research hat label

"human

security."

Vol.

20,

No.

4

(Spring

1996),

pp.

136-175;

Donald M.

Snow,

UncivilWars: nternational

ecurity

nd

the

New

Internal

Conflicts

Boulder,

Colo.:

Lynne

Rienner,1996);

Michael

E.

Brown,

ed.,

Ethnic

Conflict

nd International

ecurity

Princeton,

N.J.:

Princeton

University

Press,

1993);

and

Roy

Licklider,

d.,

Stopping

he

Killing:

How Civil Wars End

(New

York: New York

University

ress,

1993).

45.

See,

for

xample,

R.J.

Rummel,

PowerKills:

Democracy

s a

Method

f

Non-Violence

New

Bruns-

wick,

N.J.:

Transaction, 997);

Gerald

W.

Scully,

Democide and

Genocide

as

Rent-Seeking

ctiv-

ities,"PublicChoice,Vol. 93, Nos. 1-2 (October 1997), pp. 77-97; and MatthewKrain, "State-

Sponsored

Mass Murder:The

Onset and

Severity

f Genocides and

Politicides,"

Journal

f

Conflict

Resolution,

ol.

41,

No. 3

(June

1997),

pp.

331-360.

46.

Steve

Majstorovic,

Politicized

Ethnicity

nd

Economic

nequality,"

Nationalism

nd

Ethnic

oli-

tics,

Vol.

1,

No.

1

(Spring

1995),

pp.

33-53;

Walker

Connor,

Eco- or

Ethno-Nationalism,"

n

Connor,

Ethnonationalism:he

Quest

forUnderstanding

Princeton,

N.J.:

Princeton

University

ress, 1994),

pp.

145-164;

Ted

Robert

Gurr,

Why

MinoritiesRebel:

A

Global

Analysis

of

Communal Mobiliza-

tion and Conflict ince

1945,"

International

oliticalScience

Review,

Vol.

14,

No.

2

(April

1993),

pp.

161-201;

Saul

Newman,

"Does Modernization Breed EthnicConflict?"World

olitics,

Vol.

43,

No. 3

(April

1991),

pp.

451-478;

James

B.

Rule,

Theories

f

CivilViolence

(Berkeley:

University

f Cal-

ifornia

ress, 1988);

Steven Finkel and

James

B.

Rule,

"Relative

Deprivation

and Related Theories

of Civil Violence:

A

Critical

Review,"

n Kurt

Lang

and

Gladys

Lang,

eds.,

Research

n

SocialMove-

ments,

onflicts,

nd

Change

Greenwich,

onn.:

JAI, 986),

Vol.

9,

pp.

47-69;

Ted

Robert

Gurr,

Why

Men Rebel

Princeton,

N.J.:

Princeton

University

ress,

1970);

and William Ford and

John

Moore,

"Additional Evidence on the Social Characteristics f RiotCities,"Social ScienceQuarterly,ol. 51,

No.

2

(September

1970),

pp.

339-348.

47.

Havard

Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen,

Nils Petter

Gleditsch,

nd

Scott

Gales,

"Towards a Democratic

Civil Peace?

Opportunity,

rievance,

nd

Civil

War, 816-1992,"

paper

presented

o the

workshop

Civil

Conflicts,

rime,

nd

Violence

n

Developing

Countries,

World

Bank,

Washington,

.C.,

Feb-

ruary

1999;

Matthew Krain and

Marissa

Edson

Myers,

Democracy

and Civil War:

A

Note

on

the

Democratic

Peace

Proposition,"

nternational

nteractions,

ol.

23,

No.

1

(June

1997),

pp.

109-118;

and

Michael

Engelhardt,

Democracies,

Dictatorships,

nd

Counterinsurgency:

oes

Regime Type

Really

Matter?"

Conflict uarterly,

ol.

12,

No. 3

(Summer

1992),

pp.

52-63.

48.

These

two

factors,

mong

others,

re studied in

Daniel

C.

Esty,

Jack

A.

Goldstone,

Ted

Robert

Gurr,

Barbara

Harff,

Marc

Levy,Geoffrey

.

Dabelko,

Pamela T.

Surko,

and Alan N.

Unger,

tate

FailureTaskForce

Report:

hase I

Findings

McLean,

Va.:

Science

Applications

nternational

orpo-

ration,

998).

For a

critique

f this

report,

ee

Gary King

and

Langche Zeng,

"Improving

orecasts

ofStateFailure,"paper preparedfor heMidwestPolitical cience Associationmeeting nChicago,

Illinois,

November

13, 2000,

http://gking.harvard.edu/files/civil.pdf

accessed

on

May

5,

2001).



16/17

Human

Security

101

Using

the term "human

security"

o

describe this

type

of

scholarship

has

several

advantages.

First,

he contents f

cell

4

echo

many

of

the concernsof

the human

security

oalition,

o it

makes intuitive ense to use

this terminol-

ogy.

Second,

employing

human

security

s

a label for broad

category

f re-

search eliminatesthe

problem

of

deriving

clear

hypotheses

from he

human

security oncept

tself-a

concept

that,

have

argued,

offersittle

nalytical

e-

verage

because it is so

sprawling

and

ambiguous.

Consequently,

cholars

working

n

the "human

security

ranch" of

security

tudies would

not need to

adjudicate

the merit or

validity

of human

securityper

se,

but

rather

they

would focus on more

specific uestions

that ould be

clearly

defined

and

per-

haps

even

answered).

Third,

and

relatedly,

lthough many

scholars

in

this

branchof

security

tudies

may

be interested n

normative

uestions

as well as

empirical

ones,

the

advantage

of

using

human

security

s

a

descriptive

abel

for

a class

of

research

s

that the label would not

presuppose any particular

normative

genda.49

Fourth,

mapping

the field

in

this

manner-with human

security

s one

branch-helps

to

differentiatehe

principal

nontraditional

pproaches

to secu-

rity tudies from ne another.With hebroadening nd deepeningofsecurity

studies

in

recent

years,

t is no

longer helpful

or

reasonable to definethe field

in

dualistic terms:

with

the

realist, tate-centric,

ilitary-minded

pproach

to

security

tudies at the core and

a

disorderly

azaar of alternative

pproaches

in

the

periphery.

hese

alternative

pproaches actually

fall nto broad

group-

ings

and have become

sufficientlymportant

o merit heirown

classification

scheme.

Mapping

the field

n

new

ways

can

help

us to understandhow

these

approaches

relate to more traditional

pproaches

to

security

tudies,

and to

one another.

Finally,

the

very fashionability

f the

label "human

security"

could benefit cholarsbydrawingattention oexistingworks within ell4 and

opening up

new areas of research

n

this branch of the field.

Of

course,

the

boundaries between these four

quadrants

are not

absolute.

Environmental

egradation,

or

xample, may simultaneously ose

a threat o

the survival of states and

substate

ctors,

nd could thus full nto either ell

2

or cell

4.50The

permeability

f these

boundaries, however,

s

not a

significant

49.

Scholars

may

conclude,

for

xample,

that ertain ocioeconomic conditions re not

associated

with

any particular

hreats o human survival.

50. StevenJ.Del Rosso, Jr., The Insecure State:Reflections n 'The State' and 'Security' n a

Changing

World,"

Dxdalus,

Vol.

124,

No.

2

(Spring

1995),

p.

185.



17/17

International

ecurity

6:2

1

102

problem

for cholarsbecause each

quadrant

represents

broad

category

f re-

search-or

a clusterof issues and

questions,

rather han a distinct ausal

hy-

pothesis

or

theory-which

would need to be more

clearly pecified.

Conclusion

Human

security

as been described as

many

different

hings: rallying ry,

political

campaign,

a set of beliefs

bout

the sources of

violent

conflict,

new

conceptualization

f

security,

nd a

guide

for

policymakers

nd academic re-

searchers.

As a

rallying ry,

he

dea

of

human

security

as

successfully

nited

a diverse

coalition of

states,

nternational

gencies,

and NGOs. As a

political

campaign,

the human

security

oalitionhas

accomplished

a numberof

specific

goals,

such as the

negotiation

f the and mines convention.But as a new con-

ceptualization

of

security,

r a set of beliefsabout the sources of

conflict,

u-

man

security

s so

vague

that

t

verges

on

meaninglessness-and consequently

offers ittle

practicalguidance

to

academics who

might

be interested

n

apply-

ing

the

concept,

r to

policymakers

who must

prioritize mong competing ol-

icy goals. Efforts o sharpenthe definition fhumansecurity re a step in the

right

direction,

ut

they

are

likely

to encounterresistancefrom

ctors

who

believe

that the

concept's strength

ies

in

its holism and inclusiveness.

Definitional

xpansiveness

and

ambiguity

re

powerful

attributes

f

human

security,

ut

only

n

the sense that

hey

facilitate ollective ction

by

the mem-

bers of the human

security

oalition.The

very

ame

qualities,

however,

hobble

the

concept

of

human

security

s a useful tool of

analysis.

On the other

hand,

human

security

ould

provide

a

handy

abel for

broad

category

f

research-

a

distinct ranchof

security

tudies that

xplores

the

particular

onditions hat

affecthesurvival of ndividuals,groups,and societies-that mayalso help to

establishthis brand of

research s a central

omponent

of the

security

tudies

field.

Documents

Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air