Suchergebnisse

The future of human security within the international academic community is examined. It is contended that the interdisciplinary nature of human security studies has forestalled its solidification within any particular discipline; nonetheless, it is asserted that the transdisciplinary nature of human security renders it an attractive avenue of future scholarly inquiry. Several aspects of human security studies are addressed: determining the subject domains for human security studies; differentiating traditional security & human security studies; predicting future directions for both empirical studies of human security & the development of human security theory; & offering interdisciplinary approaches to exploring human security. Comments on these topics are offered by Ramesh Thakur, Lloyd Axworthy, Fen Osler Hampson, Don Hubert, Peter Uvin, Caroline Thomas, Jennifer Leaning, Amitav Acharya, Kyle Grayson, Edward Newman, Sabina Alkire, Kanti Bajpai, Donna Winslow & Thomas Hylland Eriksen, P.H. Liotta, Paul Evans, Astri Suhrke, Andrew Mack, Keith Krause, Neil Macfarlane, Barry Buzan, & Roland Paris. 13 References. J. W. Parker

Discusses "people-centered security" (including "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want"), focusing on factors that detract from, or contribute to, human security, such as small arms and external military influences; includes a case study of Colombia; 5 articles. Text in both English and French. Contents: Human security: emerging concept of security in the twenty-first century, by Francisco Rojas Aravena; Civilians and the military in Latin American democracies, by Rut Diamint; Colombia's human security crisis, by Adam Isacson; U.S. military programmes with Latin America and their impact on human security, by Joy Olson; A regional perspective on the problem of small arms and light weapons, by Luis Alfonso De Alba. Parallel title: La sécurité humaine en Amérique latine.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed a turbulent world of inequality, failing states, crime, violence, racism and authoritarianism. But it has also opened up the practical possibilities of human security – the notion that governments and international institutions take responsibility for the wellbeing of individuals and the communities in which they live, protecting them from global ills such as Covid-19 and ensuring both material security (safety from poverty and deprivation) and physical security (safety from violence and crime). My focus on this essay is on physical security, and, in particular, how to address the problems that contemporary war inflicts upon individuals and communities. Of course, physical and material security are intimately connected. Poverty, inequality, and deprivation are undoubtedly a cause of violence and crime and, by the same token, violence accentuates precarity. But while solving the problems of material redistribution could well reduce the incentives for violence, this is extremely difficult to achieve in violent contexts where the warring parties control the flow of resources. Thus, finding ways to mitigate violence is often a precondition for material security. In this essay, I outline an understanding of human security as a tool for reducing violent conflict.

This article warns that the human security discourse and agenda could inadvertently undermine the international human rights regime. Insofar as human security identifies new threats to well-being, new victims of those threats, new duties of states, or new mechanisms for dealing with threats at the inter-state level, it adds to the established human rights regime. When it simply rephrases human rights principles without identifying new threats, victims, duty-bearers, or mechanisms, however, at best it complements human rights and at worst it undermines them. A narrow view of human security is a valuable addition to the international normative regime requiring state and international action against severe threats to human beings. By contrast, an overly broad view of human security ignores the human rights regime; by subsuming human rights under human security, it also undermines the primacy of civil and political rights as a strategic tool for citizens to fight for their rights against their own states.

Research within security studies has struggled to determine whether infectious disease (ID) represents an existential threat to national and international security. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), it is imperative to reexamine the relationship between ID and global security. This article addresses the specific threat to security from COVID-19, asking, "Is COVID-19 a threat to national and international security?" To investigate this question, this article uses two theoretical approaches: human security and biosecurity. It argues that COVID-19 is a threat to global security by the ontological crisis posed to individuals through human security theory and through high politics, as evidenced by biosecurity. By viewing security threats through the lens of the individual and the state, it becomes clear that ID should be considered an international security threat. This article examines the relevant literature and applies the theoretical framework to a case study analysis focused on the United States.