You are on page 1of 8

Human security: from definilions lo invesligaling a discourse

?003 UN repon Humall Security Now esrablished a contrasc not only with the
rhe su b sequent - ,
t: te s -curiry but also for example
with that of human developmenr.- lt both adds
concept o f s ,1 e " .
as COll1p'lred ro the UNDP (United Nations Developrnent Programme) nouon of
2 an d narrows > ' .'
human development: adding a concern with stabiliry and narrowmg to a focus on the securmg
basi dsv in which goods include but are not limited to bodily secunry, It thus served
o f aslC goo S, I .., .. . .

as a pnonnzmg c
scope o f Iruma
oncept - an updated version of basic needs thinking - within the unlimited
. n development (Gasper ?005) Consideration
of hurnan pnorrnes connects to
. . ., .

FROM DEFINITIONS TO reflection about the interprerarion of'human'. It c.rrries no implication of a reduction of basic
need' to only material need; and in practice human securiry discourse encourages artennon to

INVESTIGATING A DISCOURSE 'ecriviry and tO rhernes of culture, communiry and solidariry.'
.. di . hi
a concept and discourse requires attenuon to actual use, nsunguis mg
according to different users and contexts. Observation of human secunry .tlunking shows. an
d dezree of spread including into gender studies, environrnental studies, rmgranon
unexpecte '" ' • . . .
Des Gasper research and the thinking of various organizations, despite opposinon ofien from conventional
securiry srudies rheorists and some nacional governments, and lukewarrn or hoStllc: responses
fr0111many users of the sister discourses of human development and human nghrs. The spread
has come because a human securiry perspective seerns to help 111generaung unexpected insights,
Concepts of human securiry have been debated and disputed at lengrh for the pase twenry years h h person-centred artention to the intersections of multiple dimensions of life (sce, e.g.,
t roug , . ,. al O O· Ir .
or more. Many lists of definitions exisr and various comparative analyses of definitions.' These Jolly and Basu Ray 2006, 2007; Leichenko and O Brien 200ll; O Brien et : . 2 1 , ICCIOttO
reveal not a single concept bur a family wirh many variants, all of which rnight be relevant for et al. 2007; Truong and Casper 2011). The concept has also been cited by some groups 111
some audiences and contexts. One core rherne is the contrast between human securiry as the support of conclusions and interventions rhat many others find objectionuble .. One needs to
securiry of persons and sta te securiry as the securiry of a srate apparatus or ter ritory - a contrast ask: what variant of the discourse was used? And are the conclusions necessary inferences from
which highlights [he aspect: securiry for or of whom? We should consider besides that several the discourse, or dependent on other factors, and would they have been drawn anyway even m
other aspects, including: securiry of which goods; securiry to what extent; securiry against rhe absence of humun securiry language?
which threars; securiry using which means; and secured by whom. The ser of issucs now identified could justify a book-length trearment. This chapter will
Related to this exploration of notions of 'securiry', we need to consider meanings of take only some preliuunarv steps, including reflecting on 'securiry', 'humari' and some partner
'hurnan', thereby taking further the examination of 'securiry of which goods' and of the concepts within the semantic fidd of'human securiry'. The following two secnons will discuss
proposed justifications for securitization claims. In contrasr to their relatively refined discussion the 'human securiry' concept and some of the charactcristic contents and sryle of the related
of 'securiry', many writers give superficial attention to 'human', using merely a contrast discourse or discourses, in general terrns and with illustrations. The chapter concludes with a
between the inrnvidulJ and the srate. Yet for MahbUb ul Haq (1999), perhaps the main founder brief discussion of some of rhe possible roles and .iudiences. The aim is [O provide themes with
of current human securiry discourse, 'for [rhe] human security approach human beiflgs are the which to understand rhe debates around definirions beuer than by only listing and categorizing
core elernents', not simply individuals (Lama 2010: 4). Definitional of human beings is thar competing specihcations."
they are not self-enclosed or isolated individuals but cornplex beings whose individualiry arises
through relationships. Apart from referring to human beings, 'hurnan' can also connote both
The concept and the range of definitions
the hurnan species and whatever in human persons and collectivities is considered to be rnost
importanr, most worthy, rnost 'hurnan' and ar risk, and therefore as requiring to be secured.
One needs thus to explore a cornplex semantic field. No concept exists in isolation from
other concepts, from the social coruexts of users and their intended (and unintended) audiences, Discussions since rhe 19l10s have brought forward a concept of 'human securiry', in contrast
from purposes within those contexts, and frorn the accurnulared patterns of inrended and to the conventional rwenrietb-cenrury usages of 'securiry' [O mean nacional securiry or state
unintended use. In other words, a complex general concept needs to be explored as part of a securiry. The 1':194 UNDP Human Developmenr Report (HDR) was a key step in chis
discourse, or indeed as part of a famiJy of discourses since there are multiple different contexts of rnovement, and the process is ongoing. lt involves changes in auenrion, with reference [O, first,
use in which it is taken up and related to or confronted with diverse other concepts, users and rhe object of securiry: whose securiry? ln human securiry discourse rhe objecr becornes: all
concerns, and beca use even within a given context many differences are possible in emphasis. human persons, and sometimes, by implication, the human species.
Witrun a given context of use, a rnscourse is partly constituted by the patterns of implication, Second, the concc:pt broadens mention when considering security of whar) Human
complementariry, opposition and tension within a system of concepts. In human securiry securiry thinking involves more than only humanizing an existing state securiry discourse by a
literature one finds claims about the human securiry concept's links to, even constitution by, a concern for just the physicJl security of pc:rsons. The 19')4 HDR returned tO language usc:d
famiJy of other concepts that include vulnerabiliry, securitabiliry and participarion. We examine in the 1')40s during pIanning lor a new world order after [he cataclysmic crises of 1930-45:
this later. Similarly, the concept as championed in the 1994 HUlllatl Develvpmellt Report and 'freedom from fear' and 'frced0111 from want'.5 Subsequemly often added [Q [hese banners,

have been compromised' (UNDP 2003: 5). physical well-being. consequent on this rethinking of the object of securiry and of securiry in what make rhe shift to the individual in theory [they] ignore it in practice by subjectively respects. t ·olent threats or even narrower. threats to and instru.. would concern·also rhe degree of stabiliry with which the super-rich hold freedom.!" Reflecting thar securiry is a prioritizing terrn. But 'human securiry'. and (correspondingly) of rypes of threat. This contributed to a confusion rhat some people felt III a broad range of types of good. values secondly. health 'domains of the stabiliry of the a~hievement or acccss to goods.g. is objected to by so me distinguishing between HS and Ho.compared tO discussions of state securiry 'freedom from fear' to 'freedom from want' . fourth. Hampson et al. as we have seen. [It] is communicable securiry threats and. as if protection of health.. the physical securiry of persons secunry o persons agalIls VI ' . to the list of component objectives within 'human So the HDR 1994 concept brought shifis in attention concerning securiry of whorn.? Relevanr responses to threats include protection of persons in various ways.broadening human development thinkiñg by adding ments for securiry is also a rethinking and extensión . UNDP 2007. such as threats of physical damage from physical these form a partial checklist rather than a definitíon of human securiry. what are limiting what does and does not count as a viable threat . in rhe twenry-flfSt century (see. an . subjective measures. environmental Security claims are claims of existential threat. and political processes. which kills Securiry services cannot. Hansen 2009). securiry of comrnuniry life. . are arbitrary. but also empowerment of persons and strengthening of their 'securitabiliry': 'the abiliry Similarly.." The matching defini. leading rodifferenr interpretations. . MacFarlane an d~ ongs . e. rheir super-riches. components. personal physical securiry... UNDP 1996: 56). which kills 1 H.. education. But for international comparisons King and Murray proposed . Attempts to securiry. minded countries. . while authors like centunes More exact specification of what are considered arcas for prioriry attention and protecrion will MacFarlane and Khong do - be place. We can think of a 'constellation of providers' (UNDP 2003). democracy (p. They aim to reserve the term 'protection' only ·all esp':Cl" y non-1m ·1·) ltary d·unng vjolent conflicts and agamst orgamzed . Des Gasper Hurnan security: from definitions lo investígating a discoutse including in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Next. a phrase of Amarrya Sen (e. In elfect they defend old-fashioned (state) securiry . The root and usages vIO ence. but its findings can help ro inform people's the stabiliry of everything but rather to the removal of unacceptable risks for weaker groups. rhe agenda ser by the human securiry concept involves attention to how much has. to what exrent. for example." Purpose Fifih. 'downturn with securiry' does not equate secunry to not a measure of peoples judgements or feelings.. to be secured. which can be applied in a situation-specific way rhat reflects local conditions.e. political of that phrase. or purposes. Sixth. that is the [greater] real rhreat to individuals. .and time-specific.g.involves the addition of personal physical security. . authors. (Oww 2005: 38) official securiry· forces. in particular when coping with 'downside well-being which have been important enough for human beings to fight over or to put rheir risks'. . not [military-sryle] vlOlenc. tions concern arcas of reasoned human prioriry. disease.. with reference to specified rhreshold levels." Similarly. . . 593) . as a matter of public prioriry. food securiry. is not 'protection'. as 'securiry' by conventional 'securiry srudies' which concentrates on deliberate violent threats to sornetirnes espoused by the Canadian government and the Hurnan Secunty Network of like- . (2002) spoke of 'core human of rhe rerrn 'security' validate no such restriction. 592). and againsr what threats. meant to justify pnonry response. For the human securiry copcept 'basic'. King and Murray influentially defined human insecuriry as deficiency in any key area: different users have had dilferent primary purposes. Some 'deprivation of any basic capabilities' (200112: 594). . terh te m applied only to individuals . not a 'protection-based' one. so me authors even want to Imut the concept to the phYS1Cal are not part of the 'human securiry' ficld. .of the range of relevant actors. Many people in many times and places have felt less secure thanks to the pracrices of . The attention to of HD (see. The second 01" rhe two concerns . be taken for granted as prornoters of securiry and felt several hundred thousand.g: Sen 2003). The 1994 HDR specified in more detail seven rypical else against anything else.. and protection of anything partner: freedom to live in digniry. studies' established access to privileged funding. is an even more general for protection oflife against violent attack. instruments and activities. securiry development' (HD). mtentlonal vlOlence. it thus involves more detailed discussion of what is We need to consider for any concept its purpose.. 598). and that Sen here discusses 'human' securiry. e. human and environmental righrs. It gives a conceptual strucrure 1990): firstly.but limit such prioritisation to one rype of threat. as well as the abiliry to reestablish one's securiry and sense of securiry when these = S . major arcas of securiry .ll11an development' (UNDP critical thresholds in any key domain of well-being (p. if defined only lO terrns lives or proper:ry at great risk [for]' (p.OOO. and now taking us (like the issue of 'securiry by what means?') beyond the hurnan 'downturn with security' refers to securing the fulfilment of basic needs or the abiliry to fulfil securiry concept and inro the discourse. I . Further rernarked Owen. indeed according to Rothschild (1995). by including the good of physical security of persons. what are prioriry securiry measures. f . for values' and the UN's advisory Cornmission on Human Securiry of 'the vital core' (CHS 2003). Physical security was fr0111the mid 1990s incorporated into the definition with respect ro which rypes of good. and simply assert that threats from environmental change.economic leasr: mcorne. d/or one type of referent/target such as rhe state. human securiry thought involves a much revised identification·· of. assisted)by whom? Implied by the rethinking of the object. the exact meanings of 'critical' and 'key' will be settled through local The first of these latter two 'concerns leads to definitions of human secunry (HS) III terrns of specification. comes the issue oí: secured (provided/protectedl them. . third. a combination of c1imatic movernents and planned neglect by colonial regimes left to avoid insecure situations and to retain a [psychological] sense of securiry when such situations · of millions dead in the late nineteenth century (Davis 2001).. safery. As we saw. relate. by a concern with the stabiliry of attainment of the goods m human development.ised by MacFarlane and Khong (2006). health.. to re-focusing discussions of 'wnose securiry?' Two other widespread Their measure of human securiry is thé expected number of years of life without falling below purposes have involved adding to UNDP's original concept of 'p. .. a parallel danger IS emerging do occur.OOO people ayear. ( . . the Global Environmental Change and approach reduces to a 'securiry studies approach'. ideas. Theirs is an objective measure of conditions in key dornains. His partner phrase. epitom.. in the sense of freedom from violence. unfortunately. . They presume ownership of the ter m So me users soughr then to limit the meaning of HS to physical secunty of individuals. and political securiry . Human Securiry research program has defined human securiry as the capaciry of individuals and communities to respond to threats to their social.

'.: -co tional security studies. for eX~!TIple. The rows bring in whether terrns of stability of achievement or not human securiry is defined or partlydefined of valued or prioriry goods.5 ....c ~ E ::l ~ ~§.§ . Given the relevance both of priority needs and stable fulfilrnent and the advantages of a conception that is neither extremely broad nor very ~" ~ ] ~ v E ... '" Ví ~ .co o- not arbitrarily restricted. as shown in the shaded cells in Table 2. e t: ~ o E itization within the relevant political communities. The Corrunission defined human securiry as: 'to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment' (CHS 2003: 4). Vl thus they look at far more rhan direct deaths from armed violence.s" N <. felt to be increasingly misleading or insufficient in an era when most violent conflict is intra-national and overwhelrningly most of the casualties are civilian."O 06 ""'o .c el.a " oon a- E X o •. Vl :r: :r: ~ make little difference in the end whether the concept adopted of human security is broad or ~ " Sí .. using as a weighting thern columns III and IV have an intermediate in colurrin IV cover the aspects of 'freedom from fear' and criterion the impact scope.1. Human securiry so conceived concerns the securing of humaniry. on human survival chane es. 'E::l M ""' O ranges.:1 v Vl .. level to human beings as potential and beyond physical harrn - :::: cr¡ ""- c ::2 o P ª- M v e. in addition to sheer existence. "O tions of hurnan securiry can be compared with a base case which is nota concept of hurnan :. HACSO .. "e "O M . from Human Development discours. from conven. e~ ":. These requirements go beyond freedoms from fear and from want. and/or to change the focus. this formulation constitutes a relatively e o 8 ~ t: ">o M g § 2' v ~ Vl s '"> ~ ~ "O attractive concept ofhuman securiry and is now quite widely used (see also Owen 2004). o :~ u vi '. and in between Picciotto 'freedorn et al.~ . e side of human development thinking.«: M o t: 8- o ~ M v " "E ..S " ~ '00 ¿ "O So. .: eo ""'o o'" "O ""'o diverse 'human securiry' definitions.c Ü include..~ :::: :r: . the concept of 'human securiry' redirects securiry discussions in one or ~ ~ e~ ~o o. g :r:~ but also a narrowing to concentrate on the highest priorities within each category. in . Seen from the side of military security stuclies and policy. -E::l .. beyond state and military securiry. It reacts against both the UNDP notion of HS.. These various interpreta- .. We may add freedom from humiliation and indignity.: ] e e Z :::> . Ea " dearh and human wounding concept arise from poverry than from physical violence. the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment.. in effect. The redirection can be done to dilferent exrents. "~o '" :::> '0 . felt to be too broad.~ ""'o ~ . . The UNDP of human securiry involves a focus on a broader range of aspects of peoples security than only physical safety and survival. :$ t~ "'< e 0.5 "o. ~ . oo o ::l ~ ~ ~ '" :r: oe "O :€¡: e <2 a M '0 -2 e E '" A range of definitions e B ::l c c:: e::l e~ . with their specification to occur Vid reasoned prior.::z -E :::> § ~ :r:'" .:: > ".> ¡. from want'. column V 'a much narrower range." :. u "V w '00 ~. and neither rigidly universal nor purely local. this interpretation represents an extension beyond freedom from fear. a " ~ e a.. c-.c. The answer of the UN Commission on Human Securiry (CHS 2003) gave more careful attention to the notion of 'hurnan'.~ 8o. Biblioteca Des Gasper The purpose of this third answer is to broaden the scope of the securiry studies concept of securiry. relevant damage. and the traditional notion of national securiry. basic needs plus stability. rhe Comrnission on Human Securiry formulated the range of aspects to ~ " ¿¿ ~ f ..o. Ee. and.. given the development-human securiry nexus it rnight though '" Vl "O ~ -'" :. e ~ v '" concern how wide a range of values is included in the concept. so we encounter v . -o a- e. Columns I and [[ have broad '"" :3 ~ a.D ""'o o <b "O narrow. . to a concern with the physical security of persons. ~ --5i ~" '-" Q :<: 0 ~ '. " ~ "v> o ~ ..~ ~ on " o· El typically more of the following ways: from the national/state victims. Ir considers what are the requirements of being 'hurnan '. which must be ensured before its fuller flourishing is possible. c -. broadly speaking.. o v e. To keep the conceptsufficiently sharp and distinctive but tE o " "O .: o" eS ~ v "O S e -o s: en " o a. humankind. securíry: a 'pure' capability approach definition of human development as expansion of valued v ~ o- a- capabilities. o v o o U Vl" '" as the only. perhaps also freedom from despair (Robinson 2003). forexarnple. Seen from rhe Vl :::o.2 "" . beyond physical violence as the only relevant threat/vector.S ~ '" Hubert (2004) added that.o ~ -ª :r: O"' :r:'" '"E :r: " S2. The columns ~ . R c.c <2 § Ü ~ We noted rhat rninimalist dcfinitions fail to respond to the fact that much more premature ""'O . it represents an extension beyond freedom from want. (2007).se Z eo e. R13 ." " ""'o .-.

accessed 6 June).gdrc. u for example. without sympathy. of 'securitability' and the stress on empowerment as well as protection.g. human security thinking involves. as' part of what O'Brien calls the discourse's connectivity aspects. kind of society istic stress on the interconnection of rhreats. including arder to allow meaningful priority to anything within human security discussions. can be disempowering. gender.including exploration of the things that people value and At rhe same time. emotions. their fears and perceptions. not injurious to their health and wellbeing. Des Gasper Human security: from definitions to investigating a discourse narrow. is a richer picture of being humano Humans are not only individual choosers.on participation. (See. and in the basic (COlIIl/lission J'Jr Afrim 2005: 392) needs school in peace and conflicr studies (Burton. but are frequently forgotten in other fields. Human security rhinking has given thern a new home. needs.) Lack of the threshold concept leads wnters the areas considered under 'securiry' and as contributory factors and possible countermeasures like MacFarlane and Khong (2006) to attempt to decree that whole issue áreas Iike health and to insecurity . It reduces both felt security and objective security because capabilities but are' encumbered subjects' who have each a body. and a wider scope of relative. The Cornmission for Africa's definirion inc\uded a similar stress .ly. We enumerate hurnans in terrns of integers. have access to resources and the basic poor' but also of the rich (Narayan et al.concepts in context up to a normatively ser mínimum threshold. JICA 2006) seerns to have advantages here over a narrower (. The Human Security Repon series from Canada (e. one dies. mitigate or [sufficiently] adapt to threats to and respect for others. for all. ourselves (Rifkin 2009). context of the societal good' (2007: 5).g. persons. human defining feature ofhumanity. the associated research and policy should threshold levels: one does not live a quarter-fold when one receives only a quarter of one's extend much further. 2000.e. And rhe lives of human persons likewise involve specific b num ers. and used che terrn 'joined-up feeling' for the motivating focus on human vulner. options. relatively quick. which in fact rarnify into almost Humans come in units . 'Human across a '" . requires listening to people's 'voices'. 2006).and 'person-specific. in the misraken belief thar this is necessary in offeilow humans: the proposition that what matters is the content ofindividuals'lives. have the capaciry and freedom to exercise these Fourth. requires] a more open Besicles a generalized concern with interconnections. It is part of what O'Bricn (2010) cails the equity dimension in Attention to the lives of real persons underlines that vulnerabiliry. in conducing to fuller Analyses of requirements can support claims for policy priority to these requirements if and use of this holistic perspective. Mitchell. whole everything else. the focus on threats to basic human values leads to a humanist methodology of ability. Risks human securiry becornes an all-encornpassing condition in which individual citizens and insecurities are case.rmative Change and Human Security programme. So too may their causes. The broader Interconnection and nexuses ('UNDP/japanese') perspecrive on human security (e. Many authors explore the posited neccssary conditions for human security outcomes. One is a humanist norrnative concern for the well-being environment are outside the rernit of 'securiry'. Sorne authors define liuman securiry as includingthose posited conditions and capabilities. psychological and existential security. then. People seek bodily. including the 'voices of the They enjoy the protection offundamental rights. a reasonable degree of stability. Elsewhere 1 have called this feature 'joined-up husec/Definitions. For the Global Environmental social bonds. e. To only be protected Third. So while violence appears convenient as a focus nor fractions and decimals. Krafi. and human development (Casper 2007b). those The discourse . 2001). ments F r 0111 ran <>e of aspects: the minimum levels required for normative acceptability. and complements the stress on capability found in human development thinking. Such insights are of long standing in the humanities. we may then find dietary requin:ments. do nor inc\ude all health issues. Hamber et al. and inhabit an environment that is itself particularly to surfacing concealed issues of women's security (see. abiliry and on the human rights that flow for all from basic human needs (Gasper 2007b). not only capability. Casper 1996. is a character. CHS 2003. derived from basic needs. When we look at the fuller human security discourse. 2005. which is to so me degree historically and societally Behind the foreground features . life-cycle. through to a qualitatively different ser of other things that have clear . if we realise that human security wiil not be well achieved without development. necessarycondirion: people-centered We fmd in human security thinking an anthropological concern for understanding how individual persons live. only. where the analyses identify a major causal connection. their human. including health and education. The methodology lends necessities of life. Burgess et al. e. as seen in the concept of the diverse bur interconnected threats (actual and/or felt) to these values. from fulftlment or non-fulftlment of a highlighted factor.citizens must be able to voice out to the governl11ent their security concerns attention to the specific intersections of diverse forces in persons' and groups' lives. Owen 2005. Mack 2005) considers only armed conflict and organized violence as well as their effects. is a human security thinking. thinking'. security' issues in the area of health.. so thar these can be given proper attention in the. Ahuman securiry approach seeks to manage and modera te vulner- Second. fifihl y.Canadian' or MacFarlane-Khong) one. apparendy A holistic methodology of attention to the lives of real persons proposed as an inseparable. and actively participate in pursuing these options' (http://www. so human security analysis live in freedom. including mernberships of (multiple) groups and of a common species. social and environmental rights. Much human security thinking contains in We are more likely to be open to the vulnerabilities of others if we share such vulnerabilities particular an insistence on fulfilling basic rights.are generative themes.a focus on security ofindividual persons. 2007). identity and wither or are never developed and confidence stays low.g. human security is defmed as where 'individuals and priorities for being human include a sense of meaning andidentification. Invulnerability could even make one inhuman. The vision of humans is as both vulnerable and capable. Being human has vanous specific reqUlre- rhese needs come socially specific notions of a series of normanve thresholds thar the disputation around the concept comes to matter less. material. N. nor Vulnerability and capability vice versa. attention to mundane realities of life . human security thinking emphasizes capability too. and recognition of communities have the options necessary to end. and partly subjecrive.. It is largdy shared with the sibling discourses ofhuman rights. for example. for data coilection and subsequent model-building. peace and safetv and participate fully in the process of governance. in anthropology. holds thar 'Human security by its very nature implies [i.

more vulnerable. groups and localities . vulnerable . A discourse is inevitably incomplete and underdefmcd.if not based trigger further rounds of reactions and con~equ. the distributional norice rhern when w« instead undertake a holistic analysis of human securiry that starts by changes may impact on the environment. By funders and controllers. rhe rheme leads us 10 the imersections of rhese factors and to the patterns of impact highlight freedom frorn want and indignity in addition to freedom from fear.confiict (Prunier 1997. Econornic trends can greatly increase _ beca use they have fewer resources to use in prorection. acce!erates. in defining a research programme or in indicating at a particular locus: a flashpoint or tipping point. via mechanisms that have lain outside of rhe fie!d of attenrion of beca use again they have fewer economic. a stress leve! beyond which threshold the and motivating a policy o-ienration. even leading to collapse or. as (Star and Griesemer 1'!H9) that aims 10 span between conventionally separated intellectual and in the suicides of those broken by harassment or debt. And often they are the leasr resilient the chances of conflict. conflicts." Conternporary literature on climate change is through the holistic methodology of looking al specific peoples lives and vulnerabilities with replete with warnings about tipping points in our clima te systems. Uvin 1999). in the case of persons. never be attained or stable if freedom from want and indignity are absent. Some rypes of stress or abuse may produce irreversible emotional harm. active at least in so me situations. for example. for example because of where they live. as well as for cconorny. and so on. Picciotto 2005.g. Human security thinking The theme oi interconnection is ofien formulated al a general leve! in terrns of relations looks at such links: for exarnple between economy. channels had been CLItfrom rhe Mississippi river 10 the sea. the subject matters of different intellectual disciplines (e. even as we move beyond traditional problem-framings. in the reconstruction phase. the resulting conflicts may then have implications abstracled disciplinary discourses. which State security is expected to be fragile and expensive . 'Collective security Leichenko and O'Brien's book Doubie Exposute shows how economic globalization and now lis) seen to require the defense ofhuman rights norms and principies' (Quaraert 2009: 40). 2007. it must satisfy criteria changes. but in human systems tipping points on worse land. while the synthesis report on UNESCO's multi-year human security research programme (2008). and people over sixry. because of not on diverse individuals. armed . for example. small children can suffer irreversible mental d~ficits. How it becornes actualized. depends on its users an·d contexts of use. They are more exposed. death and the very choice of the label 'human securiry'. global environmental change. economic crisis and extreme externally imposed expenditure CUlS were loaded on top of a history of tense inter-group relations and recent Ahuman securiry approach can often generate fresh case-specific understandings and insights.such as between environment and war. We for distribution and health. and thus has multiple potentials. Tlíey are also more which are not pure!y econornic'. environment and between vast sers of facrors. the victims were especially poorer Afro-Americans. Arguably.!"In particular. CampbeJl et al. crime and further confiict. 2009). roles and with respecr to whorn. wrote R. much usage of the human security concept. social. Leichenko businessmen. Leichenko and O'Brien (2008) recount how economic change had made the city past agreements. and how it íurther evolves.more damaged by the same exposure and more damaged by their actual exposure Nor are the links only limited bilateral ones. whole societies roo can go over a stress tipping point Adding to understanding as in Rwanda in 1994. conventional acadernic econornists and economic policymakers (Collier et al. When normative thresholds or bottom-lines are fe!t to have been violated. and O'Brien reveal how we miss rhese vital cornbinations and interactions when we work in well as morally empty . can be understood as 'boundary work' or higWy increased chances of death. beyond which deleterious an eye for inrerconnections and inrersecrions. Tawney (1926: 284). cultural and political resources. H. which are points beyond surges from the ocean 10 reach rhe ciry. The groups who are most threatened by on the security of can concepts help? case-by-case. Picciotro et al.nces. perhaps contributing 10 rhe resistance that prograrnme findings met from the organization's for-profit facilities were rebuilt much fasrer than not-for-profit schools and public housing. Brauch health. poorer people in general since they lived Dyer 2010). In Thresholds and tipping points clarifying a concept and discourse we must ask for what tasks rhey are being used or useful: their Human security analysis sometimes centres on a particular. Privatization and corporatization of municipal and which there is dangerous change. Its old industries had declined. linked 10 ideas about rightful entitlements and 1HOOdeaths. dangerous type of connection.rhe 'local difficulties' that arise as various stress- only the first two's independent importance bUI also an expectation rhat freedom from fear will faclOrs ami vulnerabilities interact. Similar principies can apply within nations: 'unless industry is re global environmental changes are ofien the groups who are most rhreatened by global econorruc be paralysed by recurrent revolts on the part of outraged human nature. using ahuman security approach. between 'spheres' that are conventionally conceived and administered separately . Des Gasper Human security: from definitions to investigating a discourse normative importance. looking al the particular situation and multiple vulnerabilities . The 'joined-up thinking' required is looking al particular people and locations and al the intersecting forces in their lives.g. whether through disease or violence or self-harrn. because we can se!ect rhe particular interconnections to be stressed according re their importance Roles . negative effects dramatically escalate. Similarly. This last group suffered more than 60 per cent of rhe often have a strong normative component. These were conflated in Patients in priva le health care facilities were irnmediately evacuated afier the hurricane." feasible to a worthwhile extent. Applied though through the holistic merhodology of attention 10 the lives of real The foundational ideas of the United Nations Charter and its system for coJlective security ersons. Climate tipping points are impersonal. have addirive effects and interactive effects. the concept of tipping point. Benearh certain leve!s of malnutrition political spheres. and the more extreme notion of 'point of no return'. The term 'nexus' captures when such a connection concerns a major Intersectionality link. which allowed new paths for storm We should distinguish though berween the concept of thresholds. chose in public care were lefi wuiting for five days. 2007). where such change notably social services meant that coordinarion was weak and could not cope with emergency demands. distribution. when bad harvests. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans change will accelerate markedly and become effective!y irreversible (e. whether of social science or of environmental science. Strong lobbies had ensured that many new results can be the sarne as for breaching of an impersonal causal threshold: eruption or collapse.

lt promotes the abiliry to imagine how others live and feel. The checklist can also be treated as about potemial areas of threats.g. and presents rhis an important resource in dealing with rhe objective insecurity in a person or group's Besides human security thinking's promotion of analytical integration. have hit (Lodgaard 2004). ehe Arab Region b such a language may be in the opposite direction. for J more rdined vocablllary than only objective/subjecrive. For another detaiJed recent objective needs. Such a square shows a but also of opportunities and resilience.served 'as a focal poim around which an imegrated approach 3 Berrnan (2007). objective conditions. 2003). and conrradictions-along the diagonals. We can also have objective measures of subjective feelings/perceptions. themse!ves without requiring 'hurnan securiry' language in order to do so. human rights and human developmem (Gasper 2007b). conflict resolutÍon and national security (Uvin 2004). Providing an intellectual bridge X Leaning and Aries (20oo) detinition of human security likewise concerns psychological ~ecurity. . if we use broad concepts 5 In the phrase 'freedom from wanr'. and not least the earlier Larvia report (UNDP and global sensitiviry and solidarity. and it connects to human subjectivity. and has. to global governance is emerging' (Betts and Eagleron-Pierce 2005: 7).~010). The UN Trust Fund for Human Security to bring together the differem organizational worlds o[ humanitarian relief. Amongst such HDRs. example. Human implement the changes needed' (Nkire 2010).affect the lives of ordinary people: ~specially the most vulner. 'want' has its older sense of non-fultilment of a basic need.) which increases its explanatory force and motivating potemial. lt thus Reorienting policy analysis favou~s the changes that are needed for global sustainabiliry in respect of how people perceive Extending these insights.lble. Benin (2011). is the freedom 10 eat' are campaigns for change over. First. FLACSO . vulnerability and fragility. shared interests and shared humanity (The Earth Charter. The language ofsecuriry' irself touches emotions.pdf. the debate continues to opérate wieh a now be narrow. and thus as in storytelling and scenarios becoming aware Promoting solidarity? of and 'emphasizing the dynamic imeractions between processes. reviews of the many national and regional Human Development Reports that have a source of strength and of danger (Casper and Truong 2010). (.gdre. The srudies look imo sources of objective rities and fears of the rich and rhe military instincts of those with large arsenals and the habit of and felt insecuriry. 2 One CJn draw various serniotic squares for a concept of 'hurnan securiry'. At che same time. of'securicy' with 'rights' or 'development' or 'growth'. but is less conducive than natural science queseions and nor sufficiently framed in terms ofhuman significance. 7 See.the longer terrn. 2010) suggests that the debate on global environ. since more knowledge ofien Human security thinking has to opérate at various levels. Africa (2012). without a pnoti restrictions according to disciplinary habits or an intellecrual using rhern. those fe_arsand habits exist already and have long had ways of expressing ternplate fixed by a donor organization. Research and policy programmes in particular geographical. pdf. O'Brien (2006. In rhis of human securiry. . Ir is likely the broader versions. It better grounds human rights index ofhuman security. situation- 2003). me mal change has been stuck in an inappropriare it offers 'boundary work' environment. like convemional securiry srudies. historical known dangers and which ones also face the nastier sides of the inevitable uncertainties (Casper and organizational contexts will each make their own particular definitions. 2013).humansecuri- on high priorities. also between sectors. at http://www. just as we see in thinking about say produces more uncertainry not less: whereas we should be thinking about which hurnans face 'well-being' or 'equiry'. Human securiry thinking 100 s at verse. how to respond to this. . Second. security discourse also synthesizes ideas [rom the predecessor 'human discourses' o[ human 10 For further work along such lines.. identifies surprising conjunctures and can give a with separate framings and discourses' (2008: 33). In policy design. then to get stuck in science wars which are inherently endless. the Bangladesh Human Se. I contend. for UNESCAP and others.for example: 'The freedom of man.. (UNDP 2009). it is dominated by A narrow concept of human security does not block such changes. and tyindex. gradually helping to promote interpersonal y k di . highlights imerdependence more than does human rights language.curity Repon and the Latvia Human Development Report on human security (UNDP 2002. (See Gasper 2007. Consideration of the sources of and threats to human securiry helps <) See http://www. see Werthes et al. 2007. See also Leaning et al. so ehae policy debate is dominated by again inher. that grollps lInder three main headings .org/. She proposes that more fruitful and more pertinent may be to frame discussion in terrns of human Notes securiry: to recognize that many poor persons face high and rising insecuriry. ahuman securiry perspective raises conrrast along the IOp row. it carries risks of being taken over by the psychic insecu- (jolly and Basu Ray 2006. Gomez er al. S0111eof those will 2012). Different contrasts can be drawn: issues of systern re-design to reduce chances of crises.and tlie perceptIon of an intensively interconnected shared world in which humaniry forrns a 'community offare'. However. severa! deserve wide attention. Casper 2009). elicit new insights and research quesrions beyond those associated Human security analysis recognizes emotions. It involves objective measures of objective aspects. [Leichenko & O'Brien] . The difference made including the reports for Chile (1998). focuses them fabric . and outcomes. (2004). (2011).. swse o[reallives and persons. Costa Rica (2005). shared vulnerabilities. Seeking system re-design and intersectoral rebalancing spirit Eleanor Roosevelt declared.gdrcorg/susldev/husec/Definitions. socio-economic (2007) emphusises 100 that: 'human security goes beyond protective mechanisms tO inelude the need 10 elllpower individuals. responses. and subjective measures of subjective fedings (Iike fear) or of increases attention to dangers. environmental and social and human developmene work in attemion to the nature ofbeing and well-being. ently endless disputes over the respective rights and blame chat should accrue eo nations. interacting threats and how rhey. an online deposirory of definitions at http://www.. such as seen in human rights law. a broad conceptual perspective is necessary since it partly obsolete naeional frarning of issues. not only palliative responses when crises of'human' with 'staté' or 'national'. While the 'human security' label taken ahuman securiry approach find that they have produced novel insights and suggestions aims tO reoriem securiry discourse. etc. The seven securities may overlap. e. about prioritization within sectors (as in the MDGs progranune) and. Afghanistan (2004). buc may bring evemuallarge-scale benefits. specific. Wider attention ro contributory factors increases our awareness of vulnerabiliry and Iragiliry. CJn inspire and guide the diverse particular endeavours. identifying their security threats and articulating the means by which they will developmem. services in other respects.Biblioteca Des Casper Human security: from definitions to investigating a discourse of particular groups/rypes of people. and the coilation and comparative analysis in Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy (2007).economic.see Ihe work of David Hastings. human rights. reduces the basic needs aspect mistakenly 10 basic material needs alone and also obscures the global-wide agenda in 'human-' language. for example. which is both Likewise. and to consider Fo. orhers broad. lt increases ehinking 4 The chapter builds from and extends arguments presented in Gasper (2OOS.

lfe.]. U.Y: published for the World Bank. O.m. L Sr. Krishna Kumar. (2010). Rademacher and S.ü in the Multinuie: H1l11/.1I1 St'(1Iriry Report. Fuerth.: esjasz. 155-171. New York. Hamber.. Tularie: Securitv lmplications of Glob. O.St. 20(4): 4X7-S02. Normative 'lIIdEdl/f<lhol/." The international community including Casper. pp. London: Bloomsbury. 19(4): 457-472.rerly.elop1l1ellt. St. and Basu Ray. (2005) 'Securing humanity . AI/yolle He. 32(5). B. E . (2009) Human Security Concepts in Policy and Science. C Core. H. O. New York. Sato. O'Brien et al. Sambarus (2003) 'Breakino. human developmenr. ofJapan (1999) andJICA (2006). David Tardif-Douglin. in G. S '. References Hampson. Mix (2007) The Age of COI/. McNeill. b . Govr. M. H. McWilliams. University Park. O. Reid.III Se(1lrity.. MacFarlane. Westport. . lntetnation. on development-conAict linkages and on Casper.Syllrllesi:.The Need For AHuman Rights Agemla Within A Framework Of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. K.. K.1 Hisrory. O.! 133564/the-hulllan- Burton. E a. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. the strucrural adjustment programmes of 1990 and 1992. conAlct trap: cIvIl war and development policy.. and Basu Ray.1 More C. jOllm.lfioll . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macrnillan..A Criric. 1996: 15) Human SeclIrity'. Shani. D. Copenhagen: government even declared 'For Canada. Koch-Schulte (2000) v¡'ic!'S oIlhe Poor: C111 Eriksson.'¡.. Jolly. overlooked [rhe] porentially explosive Shared Human Security. Repon. emnty JoUy. (1996) 'Needs and basic needs .uá): AII lntenuuiounl QIl. -Kristoffersen (eds). - Krafi.¡1 Chlllllte C/ul11ge. In: Brauch H G' a ald S .lIId N.. human security means freedorn from pervasive threats to Sreering COl11mittee of the Joint Evaluarion of Emergency Assistance to R P. (2006) 'Discourses in transition: re-imagining women's security'. la:g~l. safery or lives.humansecurity~chs. U Gri J M' C K . Haq. Gasper. 71-101 in Ql/esriollill. S. Fm1ll W. price Casper. Leaning J. Lennart Wohlgemurh (1':196) The lntem. human needs.jica. Martin's Press.lIlge.. S. affected the whole society In US dollar terrns. Casper. E.djollrll. O. (2006) The HlIIII<lII Se(1lriry Fnnnewoth . Hay. J Gulledge.lIe C/I./llid. Chourou. O. Truong (2010) 'Oevelopment Ethics through the Lenses of Caring. Eggum.' Russell. J Woolsey' A. J. M. New York: United Nations Development Prozrarnme.lfferly ofrile Socia! Scie11ce. with contributions by Howard Adelman. C. peoples rights.l! Development.Verlag): 965-990. lntemnticnal RelatiotlJ. Ohaka: The University Press Lrd. 116(4): 5ll5-610. A.O '.he RlVdlld. The economic deterioration. F<lCllIg C Clobal (B l. Universiry of British COI11l11lSSlOnfor Africa.¡. 2007/1: 9-43.EI/vlro/UI/elit"l .e<Jl/el/~es:The Foreigl/ Policy . A. (ed. C. ul (1999) Reflt'ai(¡¡" 01/ HlIIII"1/ Developmrnt (2nd edn). 9153--1014. In M. (2010) Cli11l"re w.. M. M. . USAlD. B. pp. Secllriry Di.'. (2001) LlIe VictOrill1l Holocal/sts .d english/ pu blicati o ns/ reports/ study / ropical/ poverty _reducti o n/ pdfl poverty _ e02. security_illlperarives-herman-kraft-argues (accessed 9 September 2013) Campbell. T Ziesemer IS found in many of!icialJapanese staternents.a clar ification of foundational concepts for development ethics 12 Oefined m terrns of all the forces 'to threaten human lives. JICA (2006) Povertv Red/l(fiol/ 'lIId HIIII/. D. controls and other regulations. (2004) 'An idea thar works in practice'.New York: Springer. available ar: http://www.1 Rcse. Hegre. Sornetirnes the Respollse to Conjtu: dlld GelliJcide: USSu/1S frOItl . J. I'. A.jol/"I<¡I of diverse causes and consequences of srate fragility. »st 9/11 World. Power .e «'.. (2003) HIII/l(11l SeC/lriry No.. Berpman. S. FO"'lIlfor Developlllwr Stude«. Bellanova. months was:] The econonuc slump starting in the late 1980s and the effects of the actions subse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.E (2006) Hl1ll/..B. P Reich. 23-46.. Mirchell. V L ElIiott. rin. (2007a) 'Hurnan well-being: concepts and conceptualizations'. Development Research Paper 2010/01.l1l/ClVOrkfor ASSesilllel1t iu COl/flie: 'l1ld Transition.¡1/ Scwrily . Cender and to R wanda s econorruc recovery. (2009) Srorllls <1" My Cr'lIIdchildrel/.. This formulation and poliey' . Dyer.El Nillo Famill" al/d tile M"killg of the TI¡ird World. C. L.5.. pp.¡lId ll1cem. M. London: University of lndiJlu Prcss.) (2001) 'Special issue in honor "fJobo W Burton'.1<1the UN .. . WeJtz.. E. Daudelin. Experieuce . Marburg: Metropolis. available http://www.<.d <1" Pe. Vancouver: Human Securiry Centre..'¡ Stieu«: QII". 23-64. (2001/2) 'Rethinking human security'. pdf RevlelV. Cerami.). 13 Work for the 2009 European Report on Development. R. (eds).jp/ Betts.".< ill Addressillg HlIlllllll Secllriry l/lfOllg/¡ Nationa! Human this field. O.. O'Brien. Welj.. 19: 5-30. (2007b) 'Human rights. Vol. e. J. de Caay Collier. Washington. Critiques. J Podesta. and a'Brien.ind lnstitutions: Towotds .¡II Se(1lriry iu [. (2004) Human Security . N. M" Robinson. .1Ild Me. CT: Creenwood. 14 The international Jomt Evaluation ofEmergency Assistance to Rwanda concluded rhat: Casper. K Krause and ti . B. Tokyo: JICA. NarJyan. Eagleton-Pierce.l/Id Sewriry: AII Eucvdopedi«. A. Hillyard. J P. by so me 40 per cent over the four years 1989-1993 . J. C/I<lllge: Environmental " HI/III"I/ Ellergy'. Assen: Roya! van CorCllm.g.úi. of (19'!9) Diplol/l.. well as to unfavourable weather and economic policies such as increased-prorecticnism. 16-3H. Mine (2013) Cood PMrice. London: Columbia Press.uiol1<l1 HIII/1<l11DellClop111el/r Reports. Burgess."uí Nntionai Leaning.colll/library/ICI-16. A. C. Brauch. Pp.' (http://www. N. J (2007) 'The human security imperatives'.5-10. Poliri.. (2002) Mldl/e.national perspectives and global agendas'. Muller and B. Report tO Human Oevelopment Report Office. ' '. and D.): NOHR Occasional Paper no. M. Casper.. J.Rwandas prime export earner . and Stires. (200H) DOllble Expo.¡l oIll/renl<lfú"I<il De/ldop111el/r. UNDP.ltl. Bloomington. Pate!. 16 Werthes and Debiel (2006) and Gasper (2010) are two more extended arternpts to delineate roles in Gomez. Praxis: TI/(' Fler¡her on Human Secunry. (2010) 'Human Development: Definitions.the Fortman (eJs. Available at: http://www. and Related Concepts'. HI/I/¡<l1IDe¡. livelihoods and digniry'. human security . P. Verso.. C. New York: UN Secretary-Ceneral's Cornmission on Human Secunry. A. J (2007) orhe "vital core'". Oxford: aneworld Publications. de Koning.). The Neiu Ze<iI.. Koser . King. and Khong Y. Arie.. Kittelsen.. H. Eúiia. CHS /C ornrrussion . and Ward. ll1refll. Human Hansec. in M. (2004) 'Humar security in crisis and transition'. Martin.uionuí freedom from want content to a 'freedom from fear' centred interpretarion..i! DellClopl1lel/l..questia. (2010) HI/I/I. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmiUan.' World Bank Policy Research' Report. Oxfonl University Press.Heidelberg . Des Gasper Human security: from definitions to investigating a discourse 11 :rhe Canadian gover~ment and its Human Security Network partners have. Ottawa.. Ethic: . N. " Lodgaani. . Oxford University Press.oro-/finalreport/ (accessed jOl/fII.1 RevielV. Hanne Christensen. M.lSllrelllelll.. in K.. Food .' sw pnng. N. Reynal-Querol.11l Sec/lrity . S. SOCIaland p. SH-<J5 in C"jJdbilities.1Ild H"I/I<lIl Secl/riry. R. Schalfr. r ti er S . Pasha (eds). T J Lama.1 Frameworks in Westem EI/rope. Bartels. New York: OUP 6 June 2013). Soci. C. (2005) Editorial Introduction: Human Secur ity. (2010) 'The idea of human securiry'. (2012) Climate Change . A.siruating "human securiry" as concept and discourse'. dn d W.. due to a sharp dechne of world market prices for coffee . Alltollyi ll1temarioll. McCiUivray (ed. and Arie. 25(3): 351-352. H.. Oavis. Us' New York. R. Hoeffier.1IIi1 H'<"ld Disotdet.'¡oglle. Proteaino HI/I/~lII SeC/lriryill " Hubert. Kohler. Hoogensen. (Eds. K. A. with R. Paris: UNESCO Septelllberlacrober'. 1(2). Clair. D. R.. (2005) HI/I/I. O.. S. C.ohtlcal consequences when designing and imposing economic conditions for suppcrt Casper. K. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Alkire. ecunty: Ethical. M. Lennon. Washin:ton DC: World Bank. Develap11le1lt Report. Gasper. (Eriksson et al. IN: Commission for Africa (2005) O"r Coml/"loll ll1lerest: Reporl of tile COllll/lissioll for Africa. Esquith and E Cirlord (eds). in G..lfiol/. OC: Center for Strategic and International Studies/Center for a New American Security.go. Behera. (2009) 'Global ethics and human security'. 6(1). (2000) HIIII1<¡1/Se(1lriry: A Fr.. Leichenko. Amicelle. John Borton. ofien added Asrri Suhrke. J Snuth. Stein Villurnstad. Honor Fagan and Ronaldo Munck (eds).pdQ. J W (1990) Coujua: Rwc Human Needs. and Murray. R.itjúll DelleJoplfletlt 15 See also O'Brien and Leichenko (2007). G. wltl1. adopted rhe 'joined-up thinking' label. He (. Salemink (?007) P romolflg H IIIllilll IU. and T-O.d af oucepts er m . O. Hl""<l1I [Explanatory factor 6 behind the 1994 R wanda genocide o! almost a million people in a few We/l-Beil/'¡:: Coucep: .relationships quently taken by the government in consultation with the international donor community ie berween four international "hurnan" discourses'. . Maguire. Govt. Japan..¡lic Blllebo"k 1999.Knibbe. Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Krummenacher. 6(2): 221-245. K. O. R.".gdrc. (2007) 'Human securiry . New York: UNDP. 1 of Clou"liz. pp."..: ameri-Mbote. Mack. 79(4). M. T. C. however. P Ogden. O.concept ami operatiollalization. H. R.lCe Sflldies. GDP per capita feU Cli/ll. y.

UNDP (2003) Latvia Human Development Repon 2002-2003: HIIIII</IISeO/rity. www. $emrity Di. (2003) 'Protection and empowerrnent: connecting hurnan rights and human security'. Paris: UNESCO. T. (2004) 'Human Owen. as Steve Smith puts ir.Cases. HORO 3 Occasional Paper 2007/9. and Griesemer. and therefore. 1(2): 37-42. A. and Leichenko. (2006) 'Are we missing rhe point? Global envirorunental change as an issue of human securiry'. Humau Securitv: COIICeptS"lid Implíonions.J. Sr. Duisburg: Universiry of Duisburg-Essen. The word 'secur iry' irself. (1989) 'Instirutional ecology.earthcharterinaction. For rhc academic one. their Tadjbakhsh. and Debiel. and on 1tS theoretical and practical applicabiliry. notion altogether. Olonisakin. S. Cambridge R. S. and Gasper. 35(3): 373-387. or is it simply an advocacy agenda. O'Brien. S. pp. and VoUnhals. Tawney. Almost two decades afier its mainstream outing in the 1':194 UNDP Humatl Development Repon http://www. in weak sures. R. Ir argues that as a normativo concept. (2009) Ad/JO{. L. B. (eds) (2011) Tr. A. (2009) The Empathit Civilizarioll. Rifkin. and Kristoffersen. Des Gnsper O'Brien. T-O. (2011) Assessillg HIIIII"" Il1seCllrity Worldwide. K. Introduction to T." While Buzan re fe es to security as ultimately a political process. Oebiel Scopes and definitions and S. R. What was supposed ro be a simple. INEF Repon !!012006. Secunty. 'g1ue that holds rogether a jumbled coalition? of middle powers and developrnent agencies that The Earth Charrer. wrapped in an excuse to launch 'just wars' and interventions UNDP (1996) Human Developmet/r Repon 1996. T. Can human securiry be considered a paradigm shift. A.1 Politics. performed by an actor. Abingdon: Routledge. J.publicarions.m Solid<lrity in • Divided World. Philadelphia. Kristoffersen (eds. Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press.? (1999) 'Developmenr aid and structural violence: rhe case ofRwanda'. R../IIge. O. K.conflict. human development and human rights. (eds) (2010) Climate CI/atlge./lid the Rise oj Copitnlism. Heaven. (1997) 71" Rwanda Crisis . Glob.llioll and Human Sewriry. E. Security Dialogue. ·2007. L. NJ: Transaction Publishers/Springer. Clair.II/ Rigllls Mobi/iz. and never sometning neutral or objective. London: Hurst & Co. As Peter Sroett advances.Approathes Ami Challenges. 16: 1-3. a Thakur. GOIICL'PtS. (2003) 'Hurnan securiry now'. Werthes (eds). C. Clair. however. engulfed in a cacophony of political and acadernic debates. (2007) Hum'lI/ Universiry Press. (2006) 'Human security on foreign policy agendas'. is 'an essentially contesrcd concept. Social Studies of Saence. S. T. S. Development. as freedom from want.oxan. VIEW OF HUMAN SECURITY St. St... K. critique absent? Why rhe Secretary and consensus'. noble and obvious idea soon becarne Star. (2005) Memorandum subrnirred tú Select Committee on Inrernational Oevelopment. Cambridge: O'Brien.. New York: Oxford University Press. (1995) 'What is security?'. lt¡twl<ltioll<l1 QU<lrrerly. Ethics and Human Setwitv. pushing acadernic discourse farther along its path of self-discovery' Defining is afta all an act. New Brunswick. Dhaka: UNOP. M.¡b Counuies. Duisburg: University of Duisburg-Essen: INEE reiníorced. so broad that it ineludes everything. Vlllllerability and Sustainoble Adaptation. and Chenoy. General used human security in al! but narne'. and what consequences such an act entails for policy and academic debates. alrernative thinking can be srifled and orthodoxy 10212011. 347-8.History of a Cenocide (2nd edn). New York: Oxford University Press. Setwitv Repon 2002: 111 Seotth ofJlIstice and Diglliry. O'Brien. Berlín: Springer. B. Robinson. R.II/S/I. 'when an issue is presenred as .llillg Diglliry: HUIII. it can also be 'a robust pedagogical process . Solea Cakk. G./II Sewriry. Allfholly~ lnternational Review. When definitions are Werthes. neruesis from Norrhern countries. IN DEFENSE OF THE BROAD Owen. New York: Oxford Universiry Press. New York: Penguin. (2004) 'A polirical worldview'. want to exist on the internarional scene? It is oft described as a vague concept with no analyrical Truong.parliament. INEF Repon constructcd in a closed and lirnited fashion.H. E and Clarke. This chapter sets out to defend the broad approach that defines hurnan securiry UNOP (2002) B'/IIgl<ldesh Humm. (accessed 14 December 2010). UNDP (1994) H/{'J/{/II Development Repon 1994. and is nor a mere arternpt UNOP (2009) Ardb Human Developmen: Repon 2009: Ghd/lfllges to Human Sewrity in the Ar.. K. mI definirions.¡tiolls ill Glob. New York: UND? O'Brien. (1926) Religioll . accessed 8 October'2007. those who prefer a narrow versión and those who reJect the Sen. H. (HDR).¡l Environmental CIi. UK House of Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh Cornmons. (2007) Global Deveiopment <llId HIIIII. Daedalus. who favor a broad definition.lliollal Migr. Ethics . Accessed 8 October 2007.HIIIJ/{/II SeO/riry 011Foreign Policy Agmdas: Cltdllges. who is defining." Defining the concept of hurnan security serves to delineate realiry.. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.. crnintdev/ 464/5031502. nothing. (2010) 'Shifting the discourse: clirnate change as an environmental issue versus c1imate change as ahuman security issue'.. the concepr of human security continúes to be a point of contention between those Rorhschild.lId HUIII'II/ Secuntv. 42(3):49-56../IIge: Hum. (2005) 'Conspicuously security . human security embodies a number of added values to UNDP (2007) HIIIIl<lI/ Development Repon 2007-8: Figluillg Climate Ch.) Clilllate CI¡úJ¡ge. rhe fields of securiry srudies. advantages and weak points.¡/ogue 35(3).. hrtp://www. Werthes. framework and priorities for the policy agenda. New York: Oxford Universiry Press.. Ir is therefore importanr to bear in mind how the definition of human securiry emerged from or against pase theories. 19: 387-420. Quataert.July 2003. M. K. from fear and from indignities as universal ami indivisible cornponents. centered on. 'Defining words is a fundamental act . or practica] utiliry. Picciotro. Picciotto. tO 'securitize' issues in order to solicit interventions in the narne of 'enlightened self interese' New York: UND? and 'Responsibiliry tO Protect' (R2P). Riga: UNOP. Uvin. "translarions" and boundary objects'.comlabout/newsI2003-09-18. UNESCO (2008) Human Sewrity . and a' new UNOP (1990) HUIlIdIl Developmeut Repon 1990. for what purposes. Prunier. 124(3): 53-98. A.