Suchergebnisse

Emanuel Adler & Michael Barnett's recently edited volume, Security Communities (1998), purports to explore & explain the development of relationships in which peaceful resolution of conflicts is the norm. An examination of this effort finds it wanting. The editors' approach neglects one of the most crucial of questions: "Whose security is guaranteed by such communities?" An examination of the editors' assumptions reveals that security communities are created to maintain the economic & political power of elites, often at the expense of the populations over which they rule. Moreover, their state-centric approach ignores the importance & influence of transnational phenomena. Finally, the assumption that increased interaction naturally leads to reduced conflict is simplistic at best. The case of West Africa, in particular, the creation of the Economic Community Cease-Fire Monitoring Group, illustrates the shortcomings of Adler & Barnett's arguments. 16 References. K. A. Larsen

Generally speaking, the traditional approach of security mainly regards states as a sole referent object of security and refutes any attempt to broaden the concept of security. This understanding is known as a realist approach. This approach, however, has been recently challenged by the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. The Copenhagen School assumes that there is now a duality of security: state security and societal security. However, both the Welsh School and the human security school look at individuals as a sole referent object of security. This article critically reviews the traditional approaches of security, the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. This article finally argues that the Copenhagen School could successfully broaden the concept of security, and therefore, it is more convincing when compared to other schools.

The concept of 'health security' has been increasingly apparent in recent years in both academic and policy discourses on transborder infectious disease threats. Yet it has been noted that there are a range of conceptualisations of 'health security' in circulation and that confusion over the concept is creating international tensions with some states (particularly from the Global South) fearing that 'health security' in reality means securing the West. This article examines these tensions but puts forward an alternative explanation for them. It begins by looking at the different 'health securities' that characterise the contemporary global health discourse, arguing that there is in fact a good deal more consensus than we are often led to believe. In particular there is a high level of agreement evident over what the major threats to 'health security' are and what should be done about them. These are a particular set of health risks which are primarily seen as major threats by Western developed nations, and contemporary global responses – often couched in the language of global health security – have a tendency to focus on containment rather than prevention. The article makes the case that to resolve the tensions around (global) health security there is the need for a more explicit recognition of the primary beneficiaries of the current system, and of who is bearing the costs. Only following such a recognition can meaningful debates be carried out about the appropriate prioritisation of global health security in relation to other global health governance priorities.

Several problems with ascertaining the conditions for achieving security are highlighted. Although individual security has traditionally been determined by evaluating a person's physical & environmental safety, economic well-being, social security, domestic order, & identity & values, it is asserted that additional measures must be incorporated into individual security assessments, eg, the need to calculate risks & identify potential threats. Although it is deemed easier to evaluate national security than individual security, it is noted that national security is contradictory since personal insecurity is frequently necessary to secure the nation. It is subsequently asserted that efforts to preserve global/planetary security conflict with measures designed to protect individual security. Even though international security is perceived as the product of global cooperation, it is maintained that threats to international safety emanate from the domestic deficiencies of particular members of the international community. Consequently, it is stressed that many people have advocated community-based security measures to compensate for inadequate national & international security programs. Multiple recommendations for enhancing Australia's national security, promoting Australia's involvement in international security design, & addressing the growth of community-based security in Australia are also offered. 1 Figure. J. W. Parker

AbstractThis article examines the challenges and contradictions between some of the leading conceptions of security within the field of International Relations (IR), from those stating that the concept can only be employed by the state with regard to immediate, existential threats, to those that see security as the foundation of social life or as a human good. This article continues a discussion that has taken place in theReview of International Studiesregarding the development of positive security, examining the potential use of the terms 'negative' and 'positive' security to bring clarity to these diverging security perspectives and to argue for a multi-actor security approach. It is argued that positive security perspectives, which rely on non-violent measures, ensure an emphasis upon context, values, and security practices that build trust, and by use of a multi-actor security model, shows the dynamics between state and non-state actors in the creation of security.