01_Security Dialogue 35_3 8/27/04 3:17 PM Page 358
358 Security Dialogue vol. 35, no. 3, September 2004
A Normatively Attractive but Analytically
Weak Concept
EDWARD NEWMAN*
United Nations University, Tokyo
Traditional conceptions of state security –
premised upon military defence of terri-
torial integrity – are a necessary but not
sufficient condition of human welfare.
Citizens of states that are ‘secure’ accord-
ing to the traditional concept of security
can be perilously insecure in terms of their
daily existence. Human security thus
reorients security thinking and policy
around the individual as the referent
object.
This is normatively attractive, but ana-
lytically weak. Through a broad human
security lens, anything that presents a
critical threat to life and livelihood is a
security threat, whatever the source. A
rigorous analytical application of human
security, even broadly defined, is not im-
possible. If the individual is the dependent
variable, then it is possible to identify and
codify every physiological security threat.
But this would be of little use, as it would
generate an unmanageable array of vari-
ables. At the same time, arbitrarily draw-
ing lines to include and exclude certain
types of threats is problematic. The
academic treatment of human security has
foundered upon this fundamental concep-
tual point.
Nevertheless, human security has stimu-
lated new – mainly normative – lines of
inquiry in the security discourse, and
these should be pursued more rigorously.
First, human security raises questions
regarding the relationship between the
individual and the state, and regarding
state sovereignty. Traditionally, state
sovereignty and sovereign legitimacy rest
upon a government’s control of territory,
state independence and recognition by
other states. The role of citizens is to
support this system. The human security
approach reverses this equation: the state
– and state sovereignty – must serve and
support the people from which it draws its
legitimacy.
Related to this, human security holds
normative implications for the evolution
of state sovereignty at the international
level. The concept of ‘conditional sover-
eignty’ has taken on a renewed impor-
tance through human security: the inter-
national legitimacy of state sovereignty
rests not only on control of territory, but
also upon fulfilling certain standards of
human rights and welfare for citizens. As
a corollary, the sovereignty of states that
are unwilling or unable to fulfil certain
basic standards may be jeopardized. The
use of military force for human protection
purposes is the starkest example of this
concept.
Second, the human security debate raises
interesting questions for the structure–
agency binary as it relates to the security
discourse. Human security has at its core
the individual as object. Some advocates
of human security also identify the indi-
vidual as the key vehicle for attaining
security through empowerment. Yet, much
human insecurity surely results from
structural factors and the distribution of
power, which are essentially beyond the
reach of individuals. Exploring the rela-
01_Security Dialogue 35_3 8/27/04 3:17 PM Page 359
What is ‘Human Security’?
tionship between human agency and
structure in solutions to human security
challenges is a pressing next step in the
human security discourse.
This leads to a third and related norma-
tive line of inquiry: to what extent is human
security inherently ‘revisionist’? Does it
fundamentally question existing struc-
tures and institutions of power, gender
and distribution in relation to economic
and political organization? Any investiga-
tion into human security, if it is to be
A Vital Core that Must Be Treated
with the Same Gravitas as
Traditional Security Threats
SABINA ALKIRE*
Harvard University
Concepts of human security vary widely.
Of the thirty or more definitions in circu-
lation, some focus mainly on threats from
wars and internal conflicts, sometimes
including a focus on criminal and domes-
tic violence; others focus on threats from
preventable disease, economic hardship,
or financial crisis – the threats of poverty
and want; while a third group considers
both types of threats – often described as
‘fear’ and ‘want’, or as first- and second-
generation human rights – as well as
the processes by which people protect
themselves and are protected. However
defined, though, human security shifts the
focus away from the protection of state
borders to the protection of individual
lives within them. Thus, the key struggle
for human security is to identify priority
359
sincere, will unavoidably engage in highly
controversial debates regarding political
and economic organization and state sov-
ereignty. But, much scholarship on human
security has failed to consider whether
human security, taken to its conclusion,
has serious implications for ethics and
normative scholarship.
Edward Newman is Academic Program
Officer, Peace and Governance Program,
United Nations University.
issues without becoming dissipated.
Why?
Grave threats to state security evoke
emphatic, well-funded, expert responses.
In the face of security threats, groups that
might otherwise differ on numerous
niceties support joint action. And nations
invest considerable resources in anticipa-
tion of security threats. As a result, state-
security issues evoke well-prepared and
effective response mechanisms. We live
in a new security environment. Still,
the characteristics of research, consensus,
efficacy, and unquestioned ‘get to the
bottom of the matter’ attention will be
necessary to confront grave threats to
human security – if we can identify them
with sufficient clarity and precision.
The Commission on Human Security