Suchergebnisse

AbstractFrom a critical security studies perspective – and non-traditional security studies more broadly – is the concept of human security something which should be taken seriously? Does human security have anything significant to offer security studies? Both human security and critical security studies challenge the state-centric orthodoxy of conventional international security, based upon military defence of territory against 'external' threats. Both also challenge neorealist scholarship, and involve broadening and deepening the security agenda. Yet critical security studies have not engaged substantively with human security as a distinct approach to non-traditional security. This article explores the relationship between human security and critical security studies and considers why human security arguments – which privilege the individual as the referent of security analysis and seek to directly influence policy in this regard – have not made a significant impact in critical security studies. The article suggests a number of ways in which critical and human security studies might engage. In particular, it suggests that human security scholarship must go beyond its (mostly) uncritical conceptual underpinnings if it is to make a lasting impact upon security studies, and this might be envisioned as Critical Human Security Studies (CHSS).

Barry Buzan & Lene Hansen (2009) note that the first glimmer of concern with women and security within international relations and peace studies was a site of tension: in the 1970s and into the 1980s, women were not on the agenda of international relations at all. Peace theorists embraced the concept of structural violence but also excluded women from their discussions. There are now new inclusion/exclusion tensions within feminist international relations and its security wing. In this article I address two tensions: (1) concern to maintain the stance that security is a peace issue as some venture systematically into feminist war studies, and (2) a tendency to issue harsh judgements of feminists whose views challenge the accommodation of cultural difference. I briefly consider examples of these two tensions and suggest ways to work with and beyond the structure of international relations to 'evolve' (feminist) security studies further.

Security studies has been slow to accept critical challenges to its problematic, and these have often been met with hostility and deliberately marginalized. This article responds to some of the critiques, and outlines the main elements of a critical engagement with security studies. It discusses the intellectual and `disciplining' power of rationalist and neorealist security studies scholarship, and highlights some of the practices that marginalize critical scholarship. It then overviews the rich and diverse threads of current research within `critical security studies', and emphasizes the central themes of its research agenda: how threats and appropriate responses are constructed; how the `objects' of security are constructed; and what the possibilities are for the transformation of `security dilemmas'. It summarizes the six central claims (concerning the constitution of the actors of world politics, its dynamic and constructed nature, the concomitant epistemological claims and methodological tools, and the purpose of theorizing) that are the hallmark of a critical approach to security studies. Finally, it clarifies what these claims do and do not entail for research and practice in international security studies.