Deepening the Human Security Debate: Beyond the Politics of Conceptual Clarification

Abstract

‘Human security’ has been framed as a transformative project that seeks to reinvent the theory and practice of security beyond the national security priorities of states. Central to this project is a holistic and people‐centred approach that broadens the concept of security and problematises the view that the security concerns of individual men and women are best served by the security policies of their states. Yet although these ideas have gained ground in policy circles, the academic literature in this area has been dominated by debates about the merits and demerits of human security's expansion of the contemporary security agenda. This article explores two key objections to the holistic character of human security and argues that critics underestimate the politics involved in delimiting this concept. In order to deepen our understanding of the politics of human insecurity, human security scholarship must move beyond its current preoccupation with narrow forms of conceptual clarification.

The discourse of security in development policies: A genealogical approach to “Security Sector Reform”

“…See also St. Marie, Standon, and Naghshpour (2008) and Ewan (2007). In the UNDP's Human development report (1994, p. 23), human development is defined as "safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression.…”

“… As stressed in the UNDP Human development report (1994), in the report of the Commission on Human Security () and in the War and Peace in the 21st Century report of the Human Security Centre (), led by Andrew Mack and Zoe Nielsen. See also St. Marie, Standon, and Naghshpour () and Ewan (). In the UNDP's Human development report (1994, p. 23), human development is defined as “safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression.…”

Human (In)Security and Democracy in Central America

“…11 The challenge entailed in human security is that the complex nature of the security threats means that they are compounding, making the specification of dependent and independent variables difficult, if not impossible. 12 In contrast to the broader view the 'freedom from fear' perspective argues for a narrower view, focusing on personal, community, and political security challenges that present direct physical threats to individuals and groups. This perspective is more closely aligned with conventional security approaches to security, holding that as long as individuals have the right to live free from the threat of physical harm human security will be guaranteed.…”

The Intellectual Perils of Broad Human Security: Deepening the Critique of International Relations

“…In Issue 3 of Politics (2007), Pauline Ewan discussed resistance within security studies and international relations (IR) to broadening the concept of human security. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) version, referred to as ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’, has been resisted by mainstream IR scholarship because it confounds definition, and is seen as subjective and incoherent.…”

“…One of Ewan's principal conclusions is that the area of security studies should recognise ‘the reflexive, contested and contextual character of human security’ (Ewan, 2007, p. 187). But conventional, classical security studies is constrained by epistemology and ontology from doing precisely this, leaving critical security scholars, who have long conceived of security in subjective terms, to debate broad human security at the margins of mainstream IR.…”