Topic: An identification of the differences between a realist security

approach and a human security approach to the issue of water

security

This paper examines the question concerning the differences between a realist security

approach and a human security approach to the issue of water security. In order to do this

five primary questions are recognized as requiring investigation. Using a literature review the

questions of what is security, what is a realist security approach and what is a human

security approach is used to identify key aspects of these terms. This paper will then apply a

further examination of peer reviewed literature to the questions of what is water security and

what is water insecurity. This paper will argue the essential difference between realist

security and human security with regard to water security is the capability of realism (states)

to implement effective and immediate policy change as opposed to human security

proponents who advocate change without effective capability. It is recognised that realist or

state power and human security or the focus of individual (people) power form two of the

three pillars regarding international relations. The third pillar is the liberal or neoliberal view

that focuses on economic power. While recognising that economic neoliberalism and the

associated connection with globalisation and commodification of a resource such as water

have a great influence in the debate concerning water scarcity, the exclusion of the

neoliberal argument has been a deliberate limitation of the scope of this paper. The debate

concerning the implementation of neoliberal water policy and the use of economic rationales

to alleviate water issues is seen as a separate subject for further extensive study. This paper

concentrates on the idea that the state is the current central base of power that defines the

authority of security, and that intergovernmental organizations, non-government

organizations (NGO’s) and human rights advocates all look to influence states and their

security positions with regard to how issues such as water security are addressed. With this

in mind the questions of what security is and how it has evolved as a concept is examined

first.

McSweeney describes security as having both a negative nominative and positive adjectival

usage. In the nominative form security is viewed as having a specific function capable of

being weighed, measured or counted - where security protects things and prevents

something from happening (McSweeney 1999, p.14). He describes this as a negative

freedom from material threats as opposed to a positive adjectival form of security which

suggests enabling or making something possible (ibid. p.15). The distinction between the

two is better described as a nominative security - ‘freedom from’, as compared to an

adjectival secure - ‘freedom to’. This distinction will be used extensively through the

argument of this paper.1 The notion of security as a noun etymologically became associated

with land, money and fortification and the means by which these became secure – armies

and weapons (McSweeney 1999, p.18). The state was increasingly identified as an

instrument that these values of freedom from insecurity could be achieved. The

contemporary realist (nominative – ‘freedom from’) sense of security as an obligation of the

state, is found in the seventeenth and eighteenth century literature of Hobbs (1651), Locke

(1690), Rousseau (1763), Montesquieu (1752) and Kant (1780) with the theory of the social

contract. Hobbes and Locke in particular emphasise security as a key element in the

emergence of the commonwealth (the state) from the state of nature (Burke 2002). Adam

Smith referred to the 'liberty and security of individuals' (Smith 1776, p.61) and 'the first duty

of the sovereign, is that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other

independent societies' (ibid. p.62). From these ideas of the state being responsible for the

security of the individual evolved the concept of national security and the need for the state

to become secure. It is argued that the doctrine that advocates the priority of state security is

dependent on the belief of individual security within the state (McSweeney 1999, p.21). This

1 The distinction is regarded as important enough that throughout this paper the term ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom to’ will be highlighted with parenthesis.

2

priority of the state and nominative concept of ‘freedom from’ insecurity forms the basis of a

realist approach to security. Before an examination of this realist approach is discussed

however, the evolution of the security concept - ‘freedom to’ which forms the basis of a

human security approach must be examined.

In 1983, Barry Buzan published ‘People, States and Fear’ which proposed a wider concept

of security and sparked a shift in academic debate regarding the concept of security. Buzan

wrote that ‘the concept of security constitutes such a substantial barrier to progress that it

might almost be counted as part of the problem’ (1983, pp.1-2), Buzan also criticized what

he termed ‘unhelpful illusions that clog policy’ (1991, p.370) including the concept that

governments could reduce vulnerability by increasing power and the simplistic assumption

that politics could be reduced to the level of the individual (Buzan 1991, p.370). Buzan

recognised that the realist practice of security was policy-driven to meet state interest as the

political environment changed. This idea that it is states that determine policy regarding

security, and do so in the interest of the state - not the individual, is a key argument of this

paper. He also very clearly defines the referent object of security as the state (ibid. pp. 27,

51, 54). What Buzan also identified is that security (or insecurity) can originate from within a

state as well as traditional concepts of external threats such as wars with other states

(Hough 2004, p.9). Buzan’s major contribution however was to identify five sectors that

affect the security of human collectives – military, political, economic, societal and

environmental (ibid p.19). Criticism of Buzan’s work was that he maintained an emphasis on

the state as the primary referent of security (McSweeney 1999, p.68). However he opened

the debate that the human beings should be a primary factor in security and that societal

issues should be factors in assessing security issues. At the same time Richard Ullman

argued that rises in population and the increasing scarcity of resources as were as important

(if not more important) that military threats to states and individuals. Ullman defined a threat

to security as:

3

an action or sequence of events that (1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief

span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state or (2) threatens

significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to a government of a state, or

to private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state.

(Ullman 1983, p.133)

This evolution in debate from a state security perspective of ‘freedom from’ external physical

(military) threats to an individual security issue which incorporates internal values of

‘freedom to’ make choices. To live and appreciate safety from chronic threats such as

hunger, disease and repression (UNDP 1994, p. 23) and ‘to create an enabling environment

for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives’ (UNDP 1990 p.10) is the principle idea of

a human security approach. There exist valid arguments for maintaining a realist approach

to security as well as a human security approach. An examination of the literature regarding

these views will contribute to understanding the way water security can be delivered. Firstly

a realist approach is explored.

In international relations and associated security studies, realists are the traditional and

dominant paradigm both academically and in ‘real world’ approach to foreign policy (Hough

2004, p.2). The term ‘realist’ looks to summarise their view that in the real world,

governments need to act in their own interest even if this is at the expense of other states or

people. Thucydides (431 b.c.), Machiavelli (1531) and Hobbes (1651) are attributed to a

classical or traditional view of realism. The Machiavellian doctrine that anything is justified by

‘reason of state’,2 which denies the relevance of morality in politics and Hobbes’s view of

human nature as egoistic and the concept of the supreme authority of the state in an

environment of international anarchy is the basis of realist argument. Crawford (2004)

argues that morality has no place in realist foreign policy, because morality is not a quality of

states who are the principal actors in world politics. Morgenthau equally argues that morality

in an international sphere interferes with the moral obligation of the state to preserve the

2 Ragione di stato or its French equivalent, raison d'état – while not specifically mentioned by Machiavelli is attributed by most writers as his primary argument and the basis of realism.

4

lives of its own people first (1967 p.430). This view presents an obvious challenge to an

issue like water security where water tables and sources are not confined within a state and

the self-interested policy decisions of the state affect the security of other states. The

classical realist argument holds that provided armed conflict or hostility does not eventuate

between states then the individual within a state can be relatively secure. Classical realists

such as Morgenthau (first published in 1948 with the 7 th edition in 2006), Kennan (1951),

Herz (1973), and Aron (2003) develop this idea and propose that realist theory is the

concept of power or ‘of interest defined in terms of power’ (Morgenthau 2006, p.4), which

leads to the assumption that political leaders ‘think and act in terms of interest defined as

power’ (ibid. p.6). Like Bazan (1983), Morgenthau regards realism as a useful tool for

devising policies and added the concept of rationality to realism ‘A rational foreign policy is

considered to be a good foreign policy’ (Morgenthau 1951, p.1). Morgenthau defines this as

a ‘process of calculating the costs and benefits of all alternative policies in order to

determine their relative utility’ (ibid. p.4). This calculation fits easily with the ‘freedom from’

nominative form security that is capable of being weighed, measured or counted

(McSweeney 1999, p.14). Within the developing study of international relations this classical

realist view of a state-centric, materialist and pessimistic with empirical measurement came

to be regarded as too limiting and therefore a more sophisticated picture of global politics

commentary described as neorealist began developing by authors such as Keohane & Nye

(1977) and Waltz (1979). This neorealist perspective will be examined next.

The principle difference between realist literature and neorealist writing is that the realists

view power and particularly military power as the sole determinant of international relations

and that rational state behaviour was based on the simple accumulation of power as a

means and an end. Neorealist theories of international relations, developed in literature of

Mearsheimer (2001 p.1 - 2) and Waltz (1979 pp. 117 - 8), agree that maximisation of

security is the primary objective of nation-states and this is achieved through military means

but also through economic power which creates the ability to build military power. Neorealist

5

literature proposes that the fundamental interest of each state is security and as a result

examine the distribution of power. Neorealist argument is that the distribution capabilities

between states varies, however sticking to realist theory, the international environment of

anarchy remains. This places the concept of self-help and cooperation among states as a

calculation of power distribution rather than economic calculation that is at the core of liberal

theory. Waltz for example writes ‘States do not willingly place themselves in situations of

increased dependence… in a self-help system, considerations of security subordinate

economic gain to political interest’ (Waltz 1979, p.107). Critical theorists, such as Cox (1981)

argue that neorealism assumes that this historical state based structure is universally valid

and therefore inhibits the ability for the neorealist to deal with change. It is changes in

international security issues that has created a need for a different perspective in addressing

security. Rather than security threats such as international territorial aggression and

‘freedom from’ such attack the security dilemma facing states and their citizens in modern

times is identified as ‘freedoms to’ exist without pollution, environmental degradation and

lack of education which in turn create ‘freedoms from’ hunger, disease and poverty which

cannot be exclusively solved by military means. Steinbruner (2000) argues that gaps and

differing security issues like the diminishing supply of water make the realist reliance on

military power obsolete. This change in international security encouraged the development

of a new paradigm in security which focused on the individual rather than the state,

commonly known as human security.

The roots of the current human security agenda and definitions arise from the 1994 United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) produced by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq

and Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.3 This report highlighted two major components of

human security: ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’ (UNDP 1994, p. 24). The report

3 The original Human Development Report written in 1990 identified the objective of human development as “to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives” (UNDP 1990 p.10). The 1994 report first identifies human security separate from human development and therefore is used as the beginning of the human security definition.

6

also defined human security as ‘safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and

repression’ and ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life’

(ibid. p. 23). Human security was identified in this report as a separate and necessary, but

not sole precondition for human development. This idea was further explored by Leaning

and Arie (2000; 2003). The report argued that human security should deal with threats to

human welfare and human development should be applied to societal wellbeing. With regard

to threats the UNDP report identified seven issues associated human security which allowed

the broader idea of human security to be broken down into disciplinary subsets. These are

economic security, food security, health security environmental security, personal security,

community security, and political security (UNDP 1994, p. 24 - 5). Finally, the report

acknowledged that human security threats could be recognized as either global, regional or

national in scale (UNDP 1994). This new paradigm regarding security has attracted criticism

and support.

Criticism of human security include that the concept is vague, incoherent and arbitrary and

that these attributes make the implementation of policy difficult or in some cases

contradictory. Among these writers were Buzan (1991), Krause (1997; 1998), Gentry

(1999), Paris (2001), and Thomas & Tow (2002). Roland Paris noted, ‘Human security is like

“sustainable development” – everyone is for it, but few people have a clear idea of what it

means’ (Paris 2001, p.88). Thomas and Tow argue ‘the idea of “threat” needs to be identified

with more precision’ (2002, p.1). The response to this criticism was to divide the concept of

human security into two camps. Those who apply a narrow focus of human security

concentrating on violence as a result of insecurity, and the broad definition camp who argue

that social, economic, political and even psychological welfare are aspects of human

security. Proponents for a narrow focus include Krause (1998), Mack (2005) and

MacFarlane & Foong-Khong (2006). All of these advocates argue that for pragmatic

reasons, as well as conceptual clarity and analytic consistency, violence and direct harm

should be the focus of human security. These narrow view supporters look to personal

7

security as the principal category of human security, largely ignoring the other six. Many

more writers including Leaning (2000), Thakur (2000), Alkire (2003), Winslow & Ericksen

(2004) and Axworthy (2000; 2001; 2004; 2014), argue that human security encompasses

much more broad scope than safety from violence. Alkire includes ‘all pervasive threats to

the vital core of all human lives’ (2003, p.2). Winslow and Eriksen (2004) argue the original

proposition of Amartya Sen’s capability approach (Sen 1990; 1992) that human security

should examine the social and cultural contexts in which people experience insecurity. This

is supported by Hampson and Malone (2001) who argues that in order to alleviate human

insecurity one must identify threats and address society’s ability to address them. Thakur

(2000) argues that human security challenges the assumption that security is a purely a

militaristic domain. Regardless of the narrow or broad definition of human security the

common link in all literature regarding human security is that it focuses on people and

‘freedom to’ live rather than the ‘freedom from’ threats encountered by the state. All of the

supporters of human security agree that the objective of human security is to shift the focus

away from perceived harm that may not threaten the state but do threaten their citizens.

Each author in their own way prescribes transferring resources, scientific research and

academic effort away from military endeavours and toward policy change. With this

understanding of realist security being the driver of historical and current security policy and

human security driving a change in what and how security should be viewed, this paper

looks at the water security issue.

Combining the concept of security to a specific resource such as water creates a multitude

of contexts regarding the application definition. These include not only the concept of water

availability but also of access (Allouche et. al. 2011). This contributes to the realist and

narrow definition of human security proponent’s argument regarding the disjointedness and

arbitrariness of policy advice. Water has significant influence on obvious issues such as food

production, health and environmental sustainability but also more indirect issues such as

transport, recreation and education. Authors such as Petrella (2001), Shiva (2002), Hayes

8

(2003), Ruiters (2004), Clarke (2005), and Barlow (2005; 2009) all argue that there exist

three water crises – diminishing fresh water supply, inequitable access to water and the

commodification of water through corporations. Each of these authors is in opposition to

increased globalized neoliberal economic solutions. Authors such as Dumol (2000), Brown

(2003), McDonald & Jehl (2003), Bigas (2013) and many contributors to the United Nations

World Water Development Reports all favour neoliberal economic rationalization by placing

a price on water as means to conserve and mitigate water security issues. Some authors

such as Glennon (2003) and Hope (2013) point to the paradox of liberal solutions by

arguing: ‘to prevent the tragedy of the commons, we must break the cycle of unrestricted

access to the common-pool resource’ (Glennon 2003, p.20) and at the same time stating

that economic based laws make waste of water profitable (Hope 2013), and that market

systems do not properly internalize environmental costs (Glennon 2003, p.22). Neoliberalism

economic policies however, while part of the problem and solution to water issues are one

aspect of the human security framework. These other considerations and the relationship to

further human security factors is examined next.

Almost all literature published in the last twenty years emphasise water security as a human

security issue by virtue of the facts that it transcends borders, it affects humankind, it is a

real, and imminent problem and that lack of access as well as scarcity represents a threat to

people’s way of life. Most authors point to water threatening five of the seven UN human

security issues. Economic security by way of increased cost of dealing with externalities

such as pollution as well as infrastructure requirements and cross sectoral impacts (Connor

& Stoddard 2012). Food security in recognising that almost seventy percent of the world’s

water usage is consumed in food production (Coats et. al 2012). In health security, water

scarcity and water pollution are connected directly with poverty and disease (Catley-Carlson

2003). Interventions in water supply, sanitation and hygiene are estimated to reduce

diarrhoeal incidence, on average, by a quarter (25 percent) and child mortality by 65 percent

9

(WHO 214).4 Community water security issues arise in the consequence of “water refugees”

in the Horn of Africa and Somalia for example (Bigas 2013). Environmental issues of

desertification, pollution and draining of groundwater aquifers are documented by many

authors who correlate the impact of reduced water quantity and quality on the environment

(Gleick 2014; Cooley et. al. 2014; Connornr & Stoddard 2012, UN 2012a; UN 2012b). Some

authors such as Hayes (2003), Brown (2003), Clarke (2005), and Barlow (2009) argue that

increased water shortages and associated issues will lead to conflict making water security a

more realist issue. There exist some arguments by Wolf (2001) that the conclusion - water

insecurity leads to international conflict - in academic and popular literature is historically

inaccurate and that war over water is not strategically rational, hydrographically effective nor

economically viable. Shiva (2002), Hayes (2003), Jansky, Nakayama & Pachova (2008) as

well as Gleick (2014) all counter this by stating that the historical hydrology of regions is

radically changing and that water security pressure will increase due to environmental

degradation, climate change, urbanization and population increases that have never

occurred to the same level as in the past. It is these causational implications of increased

water security – climate change, pollution and its environmental externalities and population

increases – and its subsequent contribution to other issues such as water borne disease that

make water security a transnational issue. Most commentators on water security issues

advocate the need for global initiatives and action to address water security issues into the

future however almost all equally recognise the responsibility of state actors to begin the

process now. This paper now looks at the differences between realist and human security

approaches to water.

The literature regarding a realist security approach finds that at the core of realism lies

power. Realism is seen to be concentrated on the security of the state and the means of

achieving this is through the application of power or developing policy that mitigate the effect

4 This translates to 1.4 million preventable child deaths per year or 3800 deaths every day from diarrhoea alone (Prüss-Üstün, Bos, Gore & Bartram 2008). If this was the sole argument for recognising water as a human security issue - this number would be enough to justify action.

10

of opposing powers. The literature suggests that this view has a significant historical gravitas

that has dominated international relations theory and has operated in various forms for

centuries. It is this traditional interpretation of international security that formed policy and

created mechanisms and institutions such as armed forces, merchant navies, embassies,

consulates and trade agreements to implement such policy (Haftendorn, Keohane &

Wallander 1999). This paper accepts the proposal that a synergetic relationship exists in

theory between the security of an individual within the state and the security of the state

(McSweeney 1999, p.21). What realist security research suggests however is that there has

been a gradual drift away from using security to enable citizens (‘freedom to’ live without

threat), to a concentration on securitizing the state (‘freedom from’ threat). This state centric

view of realism has been relatively recently challenged by the concept of human security that

places the security of the individual citizen of a state of primary importance. However the

state and power politics remains the preeminent tool in shaping security issues and policy.

Nowhere is more powerfully demonstrated than in the evidence of the estimated 1.8 million

deaths of children every year due to unclean water and poor sanitation which make the

casualties associated with military conflict appear negligible. According to the 2006 United

Nations Development report, there has been no act of terrorism that can compare to the

economic devastation generated by water and sanitation issues and yet the global War on

Terror dominates the international agenda (UNDP 2006, p.3; Allouche et. al. 2011; Rose

2011). The global War on Terror, is altering perceptions of urban water systems from being a

supplier of a resource to a potentially vulnerable infrastructure that may be a target of

terrorism (Allouche et. al. 2011). The United States and the United Kingdom for example are

installing expensive sensor security systems to protect their infrastructure from

contamination (Gleick 2006, pp. 498 -99), and in Mumbai India walls, fences and 3,000

security guards are employed to protect water infrastructure. (Nair 2009, p.1). This raises the

question, if water infrastructure vulnerability is viewed as a security threat in military terms,

why is the absence of adequate infrastructure in poor nation states not viewed as an equally

important threat? Part of this answer lies in the historical weight that is given to the state

11

protecting ‘freedom from’ threats to the state, and with the belief that morally the obligation of

the state is to self-interest. Within a realist perspective, water security remains a national

issue. There is a greater need to recognise that water is not simply a national or regional

issue but one that requires governance from an international perspective. This has been the

objective of human security.

Human security offers the view that threats to humanity may not necessarily be the same as

threats to states and that a different approach to achieving individual security is required.

The human security approach is seen to be a broad canvas upon which there are many

issues that require attention. The human security approach therefore has many more

interpretations of what is human security and how solutions can be applied. Some argue that

human security applies to an individual’s freedom from physical harm (Krause 1998; Mack

2005; MacFarlane & Foong-Khong 2006) while others argue that the social, political,

environmental and health freedoms from harm are equally important (Leaning 2000; Thakur

2000; Alkire 2003; Winslow & Ericksen 2004 and Axworthy 2000; 2001; 2004 & 2014). All

proponents of human security agree, however, that a purely militaristic or power based

realist approach is misguided. The issue of water security clearly falls within the scope of

human security issues. The literature regarding water security is almost unanimous in the

view that water scarcity and the equitable access to water will be a serious security issue in

the future. The arguments for water security lie more with state policy requirements needed

to address the issue. The way the human security approach is achieved is by connecting

international attention on human rights to security. Water security within the human rights

framework may be a catalyst which enables NGO’s and intergovernmental agencies to set

political goals and objectives for states to follow. Using an argument for human rights various

‘freedoms to’ civil, political, social and economic rights and the capability to exercise these

rights can be legitimised. One of the more difficult questions is how this can be achieved.

This is examined next.

12

The example of a young sub Saharan girl who is forced to walk four hours a day to collect

untreated dirty water can then be viewed as facing security threats such as vulnerability in

her immediate environment, threats to her social and economic welfare by way of missed

education as well as exposure to water-borne disease (UNDP 2006; Hameeteman 2013,

p.6). Treating security as a ‘freedom to’ safe, adequate and affordable water for this girl

becomes the focus of human security issues rather than ‘freedom from’ threats. This

difference in approach, while appearing subtle ‘implies that people's access to basic needs

is protected by law and legal mechanisms’ (Goldewijk & de Gaay Forman 1999, p.24). The

challenge for human rights activists is to have states adopt these laws. The United Nations

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted the General Comment 15 on

the right to water on the 27th of November 2002. Within this document was the specific

recognition that ‘the right to water is a human right and that responsibility for the provision of

sufficient, safe, affordable water to everyone, without discrimination, rests with the state’

(UNCESCR 2003, p.5). As of the 25th of July 2010, 122 nations had recognised this right,

notable abstentions are the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (UN

2010). The reality is governments as well as private corporations and some powerful

institutional actors such as the World Bank are able to violate these water rights with

impunity (Mehta 2005). This is either through ‘sins of omission’ (Mehta 2005, p.1) due to

poor states lacking financial resources or institutional capacity to make water provision a

priority, or ‘sins of commission’ (ibid. p.1) where the rights of individuals are deliberately

violated by states or private corporations for profit because there is no sanction. This second

sin of commission is the majority argument made by water security proponents against the

ideology of liberalism, neoliberalism and neo-conservatism and where these proponents

appeal to the realists and neo-realists to form state policy that protects human rights

(Slaughter 1997; Thomas 2001; Ruiters 2004; Connor & Stoddard 2012).

To conclude, this paper identifies two alternate meanings of the term security. One context is

viewed as a negative nominative form of security that regards security as a ‘freedom from’

13

threats while the other context is a positive adjectival view that sees security as a ‘freedom

to’ exist without threat. It is argued that the ‘freedom from’ interpretation of security is

associated with a realist perspective while the more difficult to apply ‘freedom to’ security

position is adopted within the human security framework. This paper recognises that a realist

security approach while requiring the citizens within a state to be secure, emphasises the

security of the state as the means to achieve this goal. In order to achieve this security

states look to power (particularly military power) that is capable of being weighed, measured

or counted. This paper argues that the realist approach has historical weight and that nation

states have created mechanisms and institutions to implement policy that support and

dominate this paradigm of security in international relations. It is argued that the concept of

human security addresses areas that are not adequately capable of being addressed with

military or realist power. It is argued that within the broad umbrella of human security there

exist several interpretations of what individual security is; ranging from being secure from

physical harm to social, political, environmental and health freedoms. Within these

interpretations this paper adopts the view that a human security approach to water

incorporates environmental, health, economic and social human rights. Water security is

interrelated with concerns regarding traditional security threats such as attacks on

infrastructure from terrorism to physical scarcity and adequate access to clean water. In

addition to this, food security, climate change issues and environmental change, health,

education and development issues make water security policy a multi sectoral issue. This

paper argues that the difference between realist and human water security advocates is that

the arguments for changing policy lie with human security agenda and the power to

implement policy currently sit within a realist framework. The research suggests that the

question of how human security and specifically water security solutions can be achieved

within this situation has not been solved. It also suggests that an examination of liberal and

neoliberal approaches to water security should also be studied.

14

15

List of References:

Alkire, S 2003, ‘A conceptual framework for human security, CRISE Working Paper’ , Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, (CRISE), University of Oxford, viewed 11 March 2014, http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper2.pdf

Allouche, J Nicol, A & Mehta, L 2011,’Water security: towards the human securitization of water?’, The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, vol. 12, no. 1, viewed 3 June 2014, http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-2394753661 .

Aron, R 2003, Peace and war: a theory of international relations, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.

Axworthy, L 2000, 'Human Rights', Vital Speeches Of The Day, vol.66, no. 19, p. 578, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 3376443.

Axworthy, L 2001, 'Human security and global governance: putting people first', Global Governance, vol. 7, no. 1, p.19, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 4267137.

Axworthy, L 2004, Navigating a new world: Canada’s global future, Vintage Canada (Random House), Toronto.

Axworthy, L 2014, 'New world frameworks are needed', Winnipeg Free Press (MB), 28 March, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Newspaper Source Plus, item AN 7BS933072300.

Balaji, R Connor, R Glennie, P van der Gun, J Lloyd G J & Young, G 2012, ‘The water resource: Variability, vulnerability and uncertainty’, chapter 3 in UN 2012, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 1: managing water under uncertainty and risk, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 77 – 100, viewed 10 March 2014, < http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/WWDR4%20Volume%201-Managing%20Water%20under%20Uncertainty%20and%20Risk.pdf >.

Barlow, M 2009, Blue covenant: the global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water, The New Press, New York.

16

Barlow, M & Clarke, T 2005, ‘Blue gold: the battle against corporate theft of the world's water’, The New Press, New York.

Bigas, H 2013, Water Security and the global water agenda, United Nations University, Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Ontario, Canada, viewed 11 March 2014, <http://www.unwater.org/downloads/watersecurity_analyticalbrief.pdf>.

Brown, L R 2003, ‘The effect of emerging water shortages on the world's food’, in McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it?: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, pp. 77 – 88, National Geographic Society, Washington.

Bull, H, 1977, The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Buzan, B 1983, People, states and fear: the national security problem in international relations, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton, UK.

Buzan, B 1991, People, states, and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era, 2nd edn., Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.

Buzan, B Wæver, O & de Wilde, J 1998, Security: a new framework for analysis, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.

Burke, A 2002, ‘Aporias of Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political vol. 27, no. 1, viewed online, 3 June 2014, <http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-84338217>.

Catley-Carlson, M 2003, ‘Working for water’, in McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it?: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, pp. 65 – 76, National Geographic Society, Washington.

Coates, D Connor, R Leclerc, L Rast, W Schumann, K & Webber, M 2012, ‘Water demand: What drives consumption?’, chapter 2 in UN 2012, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 1: managing water under uncertainty and risk, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 44 – 76, viewed 10 March 2014, < http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/WWDR4%20Volume%201-Managing%20Water%20under%20Uncertainty%20and%20Risk.pdf >.

17

Connor, R & Stoddard, H 2012, Recognizing the centrality of water and its global dimensions, chapter 1 in UN 2012, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 1: managing water under uncertainty and risk, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 22 – 42, viewed 10 March 2014, < http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/WWDR4%20Volume%201-Managing%20Water%20under%20Uncertainty%20and%20Risk.pdf >.

Cooley, H Ajami, N Mai-Lan, H Srinivasan, V Morrison, J Donnelly, K & Christian-Smith, j 2014, ‘Global water governance in the twenty-first century’, in Gleick, P H (ed.) 2014, The Worlds water, volume 8 – biennial report on freshwater resources, Pacific institute in development, environment and security, Island Press, Washington.

Cox, R 1981, 'Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory', Millennium: Journal Of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 126 – 55, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, E-Journals, item AN 18596668.

Dumol, M 2000, The Manila water concession: a key government official's diary of the world's largest water privatization, World Bank Publications, Washington.

Gentry, J A 1999 ‘The cancer of human rights’, in Scott, G M Jones, R J & Furmanski, L S (eds.) 2004, 21 debated issues in world politics, 2nd edn., , pp. 179 – 83, Pearson Education, New Jersey.

Gentry-Shields, J & Bartram, J 2012, ‘Water and health’, chapter 34 in UN 2012, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 2: knowledge base, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 723 – 41, viewed 10 March 2014, <http://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/onu/789-eng-ed4-v2.pdf>.

Gleick, P H 2006, ‘Water and terrorism’, Water Policy, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 481 – 503, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, viewed 1 April 2014, <http://www2.pacinst.org/reports/water_terrorism.pdf>.

Gleick, P H (ed.) 2014, The Worlds water, volume 8 – biennial report on freshwater resources, Pacific institute in development, environment and security, Island Press, Washington.

18

Glennon, R 2003, ‘Bottling a birthright?’ in McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, pp. 9 – 24, National Geographic Society, Washington.

Goldewijk, B K & de Gaay Fortman, B 1999, Where needs meet rights: economic, social and cultural rights in a new perspective, World Council of Churches (WCC), Geneva.

Haftendorn, H Keohane, R & Wallander, C 1999, imperfect unions : security institutions over time and space, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hameeteman, E 2013, Future water (in) security: facts, figures, and predictions, Global Water Institute, Brussels, viewed 10 June 2014, <http://www.gwiwater.org/sites/default/files/pub/FUTURE%20WATER%20(IN)SECURITY..pdf>.

Hampson, F O & Malone, D (eds.) 2001, From reaction to conflict prevention: opportunities for the UN in the new millennium, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.

Hampson, F O Daudelin, J Hay, J B Martin, T & Reid, H 2002, Madness in the multitude: human security and world disorder, Oxford University Press, Ottawa.

Hayes, D J 2003, ‘Accommodation turns to conflict: lessons from the Colorado’, in McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, pp. 139 – 54, National Geographic Society, Washington.

Hertz, J H, 1973, Political realism and political idealism: a study in theories and realities, University of Chicago Press, Chicargo.

Hobbes, T 1651, Leviathan or The matter, forme and power of a common wealth ecclesiastical and civil, web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide, University of Adelaide Library, University of Adelaide, updated 27 February 2014, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/.>

Hope, R 2013, Prospects for achieving and maintaining universal drinking water services in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, Discussion Paper 1340, Global Water Forum, viewed 10 March 2014, http://www.globalwaterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Prospects-for-achieving-and-maintaining-universal-drinking-water-services-in-South-Asia-and-sub-Saharan-Africa-GWF-1340.pdf>.

19

Hough, P 2004, Understanding Global Security, Routledge, New York: Routledge, viewed online 4 June 2014, <http://www.questia.com/read/108278282>.

Hume, D 1748, ‘Of the original contract’ in Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, edited by Miller, E F Liberty Fund, Inc., viewed online 3 June 2014, <http://hermetic.com/93beast.fea.st/files/section1/hume/extras/Essays,%20Moral,%20Political,%20and%20Literary.pdf>.

Jansky, L Nakayama, M & Pachova, N 2008, International water security: domestic threats and opportunities, United Nations University Press, viewed 12 March 2014 EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, eBook Academic Collection, item AN 262615.

Kant, I 1780, Metaphysical elements of justice, translated by Kingsmill-Abbott, T 2003, viewed online 3 June 2014, <http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/morals/ch01.htm>.

Kennan, G F, 1951, Realities of American foreign policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Keohane, R O & Nye, J 1977, Power and independence: world politics in transition, Little Brown, Boston.

King, G, & Murray, C 2001, 'Rethinking human security', Political Science Quarterly, vol. 116, no. 4, p. 585 - 610, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 6079284.

Krause, K & Williams, M C 1997, Critical security studies: concepts and cases, UCL Press, London, viewed in Taylor & Francis e-Library, 14 April 2014, <http://guessoumiss.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/critical-security-studies.pdf>.

Krause K, 1998. ‘Critical theory and security studies: the research programme of critical security studies’, Cooperation and Conflict: Nordic Journal of International Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 298 – 333, Sage Journals online, doi: 10.1177/0010836798033003004

20

Leaning, J & Arie, S 2000, Human security: a framework for assessment in conflict and transition, USAID Complex Emergency Response and Transition Initiative, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA viewed online 14 April 2014, <http://www.certi.org/publications/policy/human%20security-4.PDF>.

Leaning, J, Arie, S, Holleufer, G, & Bruderlein, C 2003, 'Human security and conflict: a comprehensive approach', in Chen, L C Leaning, & Narasimhan, V 2003, Studies in Global Equity - Global health challenges for human security, pp. 13-30, Global Equity Initiative, Harvard University, Harvard.

McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, National Geographic Society, Washington.

MacFarlane, S N & Foong-Khong, Y 2006, Human security and the UN: a critical history (United Nations intellectual history project series), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indianapolis.

Locke, J 1690, The second treatise of civil government in web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide, University of Adelaide Library, updated 7 March 2014, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/locke/john/l81s/>.

MacFarlane, S N & Foong-Khong, Y 2006, Human security and the UN: a critical history (United Nations intellectual history project series), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indianapolis.

McSweeney, B 1999, Security, identity, and interests: a sociology of international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, , England, viewed online, 3 June 2014, <http://www.questia.com/read/105310737>.

Machiavelli, N 1531, Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli, web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide, The University of Adelaide Library updated 17 March 2014, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/contents.html>.

Machiavelli, N 1531, The prince, translated by Marriott W K, Project Gutenberg EBook, updated 5 November 2012, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm>.

21

Mack, A 2005, Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century, Human Security Centre, Oxford University Press, New York, viewed online 12 April 2014, <http://www.hsrgroup.org/human-security-reports/2005/text.aspx>.

Mearsheimer, J J 2001, The tragedy of great power politics, Norton, New York.

Mehta, L 2005, Unpacking rights and wrongs: do human rights make a difference? the case of water rights in India and South Africa, Institute of Development Studies Working Paper, no. 260, Brighton, Sussex, viewed 30 March 2014, <https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp260.pdf>.

Montesquieu, C 1752, The spirit of laws, translated Nugent, T revised by Prichard, J V based on an public domain edition published in 1914 by G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., London, viewed online 3 June 2014, <http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.txt>.

Morgenthau, H J 1951, In defense of the national interest: a critical examination of American foreign policy, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Morgenthau, H J 1955, 'A State of Insecurity', New Republic, vol. 132, no. 16, pp. 8 – 14, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 14444628.

Morgenthau, H J 1962, Politics in the 20th century, Vol. I, - the decline of democratic politics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago viewed online, <https://archive.org/details/politicsintwenti03morg>.

Morgenthau, H J 1967, ‘To intervene or not to intervene’, Foreign Affairs vol. 45, no. 3 pp. 425 – 36, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 5811175.

Morgenthau, H J 2006, Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace, 7th ed., revised by Thompson, K W, McGraw-Hill Education, Boston.

Nair, D 2009, ‘Now, security guards for water pipelines in city’, The Indian Express, 13 May 2009, viewed 1 April 2014, <http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/now-security-guards-for-water-pipelines-in-city/458372/>.

22

Paris, R 2001, ‘Human security – paradigm shift or hot air?’, International Security, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 87 – 102, viewed 2 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 5389591.

Petrella, R 2001, The water manifesto: arguments for a world water contract, Zed Books, London.

Prüss-Üstün, A Bos, R Gore, F & Bartram, J 2008, Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, viewed 30 March 2014, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596435_eng.pdf?ua=1>.

Rose, G 2011, The big necessity: adventures in the world of human waste, Portobello Books, London.

Rothschild, E 1995 'What is security?' Daedalus, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 53–98, The MIT Press, viewed 3 June 2014, JSTOR Database, Article Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027310>.

Rousseau, J J 1763, The Social Contract, found in Halsall, P2011, the Internet Modern History Open Sourcebook, Fordham University, viewed 3 June 2014, <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseau-soccon.asp>.

Ruiters, G 2004, The age of commodity: water privatization in Southern Africa, Earthscan Publications, London.

Sen, A 1992, Inequality Re-examined, Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. New York

Sen, A 1993, ‘Capability and well-being’, in Hausman, D M 2007, The philosophy of economics: an anthology, Ch 15. pp. 270 – 93, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Sen, A 2001, 'Economic development and capability expansion in historical perspective', Pacific Economic Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 179 – 91, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, EconLit, item AN 0582893.

23

Sen, A 2003, ‘Development as capability expansion’, in Fukuda-Parr S, et al Readings in Human Development, Oxford University Press, New York, viewed online 29 March 2014, <http://morgana.unimore.it/Picchio_Antonella/Sviluppo%20umano/svilupp%20umano/Sen%20development.pdf>.

Shiva, V 2002, Water wars: privatization, pollution and profit, Pluto Press, London.

Slaughter, A 1997, ‘The real new world order’ in Scott, G M Jones, R J & Furmanski, L S (eds.) 2004, 21 debated issues in world politics, 2nd edn., pp. 22 – 32, Pearson Education, New Jersey.

Smith, A 1776, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, cited in Rothschild, E 1995 'What is security?' Daedalus, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 61 – 2, The MIT Press, viewed 3 June 2014, JSTOR Database, Article Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027310 >.

Supriya, K 2013, ‘The looming threat of water scarcity’, Vital Signs Online, Worldwatch Institute, viewed 10 March 2014, http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/looming-threat-water-scarcity>.

Suzuki, D & McConnell, A 2003, ‘A child's reminder’, in McDonald, B & Jehl, D (eds) 2003, Whose water is it: the unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world, pp. 177 – 86, National Geographic Society, Washington.

Thakur, R 2004, 'A Political Worldview', Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 347 – 48, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 16956342.

Thakur, R, & van Ginkel, H 2000, 'A Safer World and a Better Life for All', UN Chronicle, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 16, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 3665509.

Thomas, C 2001, ‘Global governance, development and human security: exploring the links’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 159 – 75, viewed 29 March 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Business Source Complete, item AN 5393318.

24

Thomas, N, & Tow, W 2002, 'The utility of human security: sovereignty and humanitarian intervention', Security Dialogue, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 177-92, viewed 16 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, E-Journals, item AN 4403773.

Thucydides 431 b.c., The history of the Peloponnesian war, translated by Crawley, R, The Internet Classics Archive, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html>.

Ullman, R 1983 'Redefining Security', International Security, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 129 – 53, The MIT Press, viewed 3 June 2014, JSTOR Database, Article DOI: 10.2307/2538489, Article Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538489>.

United Nations (UN) 2010, General Assembly adopts resolution recognizing access to clean water, saniration, United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, 28 July, 2010, viewed 30 March 2014, <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gal0967.doc.htrn>.

United Nations (UN) 2012a, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 1: managing water under uncertainty and risk, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France, viewed 10 March 2014, <http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/WWDR4%20Volume%201-Managing%20Water%20under%20Uncertainty%20and%20Risk.pdf>.

United Nations (UN) 2012b, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 2: knowledge base, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France, viewed 10 March 2014, <http://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/onu/789-eng-ed4-v2.pdf>.

United Nations Economic & Social Council Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) 2003, General Comment 15 (2002): The Right to Water, articles 11 & 12 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/2002/1 1, published 20 Jan 2003, viewed 30 March 2014, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/docs/CESCR_GC_15.pdf>.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1990, Human development report 1990, Oxford University Press, New York, viewed online 14 April 2014, <http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf>.

25

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994, Human development report 1994, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, viewed online 11 June 2014, <http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/267/hdr06-complete.pdf>.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2006, Human development report 2006, Oxford University Press, New York, viewed online 14 April 2014,

Waltz, K N 1979, Theory of International Politics, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Winpenny, J 2012, ‘Unvalued water leads to an uncertain future’, chapter 10 in UN 2012, United Nations world water development report 4, vol. 1: managing water under uncertainty and risk, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, pp. 276 - 88, viewed 10 March 2014, <http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/WWDR4%20Volume%201-Managing%20Water%20under%20Uncertainty%20and%20Risk.pdf>.

Winslow, D, & Eriksen, T 2004, 'A broad concept that encourages interdisciplinary thinking', Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 361 – 2, viewed 16 April 2014, EBSCOhost MegaFILE Premier, Academic Search Complete, item AN 16956354.

Wolf, A T 2001, ‘Water and human security’, Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, vol. 118, no. 1, viewed 30 March 2014, <http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=jcwre>.

Wolfers, A 1962, Discord and collaboration: essays on international politics, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

World Health Organization, (WHO) 2014, ‘Children's environmental health - environmental risks’, WHO viewed 10 March 2014, <http://www.who.int/ceh/risks/cehwater2/en/>.

Wriston, W B 1997, ‘Bits, bytes and diplomacy’, in Scott, G M Jones, R J & Furmanski, L S (eds.) 2004, 21 debated issues in world politics, 2nd edn., pp. 12 – 21, Pearson Education, New Jersey.

26