Description

This paper argues for a new approach to work in the field of human security. Frequently, debate has centred on attempts to narrow the breadth of the concept or to provide a clear hierarchy ranking different aspects of human security. However, there are several reasons why it may prove fruitful to focus attention, rather, on the range of actors considered to be useful within the field. While there are limits to the willingness and ability of states and international institutions to fully embrace the human security concept (particularly given that its definition, arguably, must of necessity remain vague) the global justice movement (GJM) does not face the same limitations. This is in part because the GJM does not rely on centralised policymaking, but instead works through a form of 'networked activism' in which the processes of the movement are an attempt to build a more just and democratic world. As networked activism substitutes for overarching and centralised policy within the GJM, more attention must be paid to whether it adequately supports the GJM's work in the field of human security.