Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alfred-wan |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 17
8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
1/17
Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?Author(s): Roland ParisSource: International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall, 2001), pp. 87-102Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123.
Accessed: 21/09/2013 09:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Security.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3092123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
2/17
Human
Security
Roland
aris
Paradigm
Shift r
Hot
Air?
Human
security
is
the atest
n
a
long
line
of
neologisms-including
common
security, lobal
se-
curity, ooperative
security,
nd
comprehensive
ecurity-that encourage pol-
icymakers
and scholars to
think
about international
ecurity
s
something
more
than the
military
defense of state interests nd
territory. lthough
definitions
f human
security
ary,
most
formulations
mphasize
the welfare
of
ordinarypeople. Among
the most vocal
promoters
f human
security
re
thegovernments fCanada and Norway,whichhave takenthe ead in estab-
lishing
a "human
security
network"
of
statesand
nongovernmental
rganiza-
tions
NGOs)
thatendorse the
concept.'
The termhas also
begun
to
appear
in
academic
works,2
nd is the
subject
of new research
projects
t
several
major
universities.3
RolandParis
s Assistant
rofessor
f
Political cience nd nternational
ffairs
t
the
Universityf
Colo-
rado,
Boulder.
My
thanks
to Michael
Barnett,
rancis
Beer,
Stephen
Brooks,
Steve
Chan,
Claudio
Cioffi,
aniel
Drezner,Colin Dueck,Natalie Goldring, an Hurd,PeterViggoJakobsen, avid Leblang,Daniel
Lindley,
Michael
Lipson,
and
Thomas
Weiss for
omments
n
previous
drafts.
An earlier
version
of this
articlewas
presented
to the
oint
meeting
of
the
nternational
ecurity
nd Arms
Control
sectionof the AmericanPoliticalScience Association
nd
the nternational
ecurity
tudies
section
of
the
nternational tudies Association
n
Denver,
Colorado
(November
9-11, 2000),
and at the
an-
nual
conference
f the
nternational tudies Association
n
Chicago,
llinois
February
0-24,
2001).
1.
Other
states
n
the network nclude
Austria,Chile, Greece, reland,
Jordan,
Mali,
the
Nether-
lands, Slovenia,
Switzerland,
nd
Thailand.
See "Chairman's
Summary,"
econd Ministerial
Meet-
ing
of
the
Human
Security
Network,
Lucerne,
Switzerland,
May
11-12, 2000,
http://www.dfait-
maeci.gc.ca/foreignp/humansecurity/Chairman_summary-e.asp
accessed
on
February
4,2001).
2.
For
example,
Yuen
Foong
Khong,
"Human
Security:
A
Shotgun Approach
to
Alleviating
Hu-
man
Misery?"
Global
Governance,
ol.
7,
No.
3
(July-September
001);
Oliver
Richmond,
Human
Security,
he Rule ofLaw,' and NGOs: Potentials nd ProblemsforHumanitarian ntervention,"
Human
Rights
Review,
ol.
2,
No. 4
(July-September
001);
Astri
uhrke,
Human
Security
nd
the
Interests f
States,"
Security
ialogue,
Vol.
30,
No.
3
(September
999),
pp.
265-276;
Peter
toett,
u-
man nd Global
ecurity:
n
Exploration
f
Terms
Toronto:
University
f
Toronto
Press,
1999);
Caro-
line Thomas
and
Peter
Wilkin, eds., Globalization,
uman
Security,
nd the
African xperience
(Boulder,
Colo.:
Lynne
Rienner,1999);
Jorge
Nef,
Human
Security
nd Mutual
Vulnerability:
he
GlobalPolitical
conomy fDevelopment
nd
Underdevelopment,
d ed.
(Ottawa:
International evel-
opment
Research
Centre, 999);
Majid
Tehranian,
d.,
Worlds
part:
Human
Security
nd GlobalGov-
ernance
London:
I.B.
Tauris,
1999);
Heather
Owens
and
Barbara
Arneil,
"The Human
Security
Paradigm
Shift:
A
New Lens on Canadian
ForeignPolicy? Report
of the
University
f British o-
lumbia
Symposium
on Human
Security,"
bid.,
pp.
1-12;
Ramesh
Thakur,
The United Nations
and Human
Security,"
bid.,
pp.
51-60;
and
TatsuroMatsumae and L.C.
Chen,
eds.,
Common ecu-
rity
n Asia:
New
Concept
f
Human
Security
Tokyo:
Tokai
University
ress,
1995).
3. These includeHarvardUniversity's rogramon Human Security,heUniversity f Denver's
International
ecurity,
ol.
26,
No.
2
(Fall
2001),
pp.
87-102
?
2001
by
the President nd Fellows of
Harvard
College
and the
Massachusetts nstitute
f
Technology.
87
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
3/17
International
ecurity
6:2
1
88
Some commentators
rgue
thathuman
security
epresents
new
paradigm
for
cholars
and
practitioners
like.
Despite
these
claims, however,
t
remains
unclear
whether he
concept
of
human
security
an serve as a
practicalguide
for
cademic
research
r
governmental olicymaking.
As
Daniel
Deudney
has
written
n
another
context,
Not all
neologisms
are
equally plausible
or use-
ful."4Two
problems,
n
particular,
imit
the usefulness
of the
human
security
concept
for tudents nd
practitioners
f
international
olitics.
First,
he
con-
cept
lacks
a
precise
definition.
Human
security
s like "sustainable
develop-
ment"-everyone
is for
t,
but few
people
have a clear idea of what itmeans.
Existing
definitions
f
human
security
end to be
extraordinarily xpansive
and
vague, encompassing everything
rom
physical security
o
psychological
well-being,
which
provides policymakers
with
ittle
uidance
in
the
prioritiza-
tion
of
competing
policy goals
and academics little ense of
what,
exactly,
s to
be studied.
Second,
the
most
ardentbackers
of human
security ppear
to have an
inter-
est
n
keeping
the term
xpansive
and
vague.
The
idea
of human
security
s the
glue
that
holds
together
jumbled
coalition of "middle
power"
states,
devel-
opment gencies, nd NGOs-all ofwhich seek to shift ttention nd resources
away
from onventional
ecurity
ssues
and
toward
goals
that
have
tradition-
ally
fallen
under the rubricof international
evelopment.
As a
unifying
on-
cept
for
this
coalition,
human
security
s
powerful precisely
because it lacks
precision
nd
thereby
ncompasses
the diverse
perspectives
nd
objectives
of
all the membersof the coalition.
The
term,
n
short,
ppears
to be
slipperyby
design.
Cultivated
ambiguity
rendershuman
security
n effective
ampaign
slogan,
but it
also
diminishes
he
concept's
usefulness s
a
guide
for cademic
research
or
policymaking.
This is notto say thathumansecuritys merely hot air" or emptyrhetoric.
The
political
coalition
that now uses human
security
s
a
rallying
cry
has
chalked
up significant
ccomplishments,
ncluding
the
signing
of an
anti-
personnel
land
mines convention
and the
imminent reation
of an interna-
tional criminal
ourt.
The alliance of some states
and
advocacy groups
has al-
tered the
andscape
of
international
olitics
since
the end of
the
Cold
War,
s
Richard
Price and others have
shown.5 But to
say
that
human
security
has
Graduate
School of nternational
tudies,
the
University
f New South
Wales's Asia-Australia
n-
stitute,nd theUniversity f BritishColumbia's Institute f International elations.
4.
Daniel
Deudney,
"Environment nd
Security:
Muddled
Thinking,"
Bulletin
f
the
Atomic cien-
tists,
Vol.
47,
No. 3
(April
1991),
p.
23.
5.
Richard
Price,
Reversing
he Gun
Sights:
Transnational
ivil
SocietyTargets
and
Mines,"
In-
ternational
rganization,
ol.
52,
No. 3
(Summer
1998),
pp.
613-644;
and
Craig
Warkentin
nd Karen
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
4/17
Human
Security
89
served as an effective
allying ry
s
different
rom
laiming
hat he
concept
of-
fers a useful framework
or
analysis,
as some
of its
proponents
maintain.6
Campaign slogans
can
be
consequential
without
being
well defined.The
im-
pact
of
Lyndon
Johnson's
Great
Society
rhetoric,
or
example,
was
arguably
significant-serving
s
a
focal
point
for
political
upporters
f
his reformisto-
cial
agenda-but
the exact
meaning
of the
term
great
society"
was obscure.
Similarly,
ne
can
support
the
political goals
of
the
human
security
oalition
while
recognizing
hat
the idea of human
security
tself
s a
muddle.
This article
proceeds
as follows.
First,
examine
existing
definitions f hu-
man
security.
econd,
I
explore
the limits of human
security
s a
practical
guide
for cademic research nd
policymaking.
hird,
examine recent fforts
to narrow the definition f human
security.
ourth,
consider
ways
in
which
the
concept might, espite
its
imitations,
make a contribution o the
study
of
international elations nd
security.
What s Human
Security?
The firstmajorstatement oncerning umansecurity ppeared in the1994Hu-
man
Development
eport,
n
annual
publication
of
the United
Nations
Develop-
ment
Programme
UNDP).
"The
concept
of
security,"
he
report rgues,
"has
for too
long
been
interpreted
arrowly:
s
security
f
territory
rom xternal
aggression,
r as
protection
f
national nterests
n
foreign olicy
or
as
global
security
rom he
threat f nuclear
holocaust....Forgotten
ere the
legitimate
concerns f
ordinary
eople
who
sought ecurity
n their
aily
ives."7
This
cri-
tique
is
clear and
forceful,
ut
the
report's ubsequent
proposal
for new
con-
cept
of
security-human security-lacks
precision:
"Human
security
an be
said to have two mainaspects. tmeans, first,afety rom uch chronic hreats
as
hunger,
isease and
repression.
And
second,
t
means
protection
rom
ud-
den and
hurtful
isruptions
n
the
patterns
f
daily
life-whether
n
homes,
n
jobs
or
in
communities."8
he
scope
of
this
definition s vast:
Virtually ny
kind
of
unexpected
or
irregular
discomfort ould
conceivably
constitute
threat
o
one's human
security. erhaps anticipating
his
criticism,
he
authors
Mingst,
"International
nstitutions,
he
State,
and Global Civil
Society
n
the
Age
of
the
World
Wide
Web,"
Global
Governance,
ol.
6,
No.
2
(April-June
000),
pp.
237-257.
6. Laura Reed and Majid Tehranian, Evolving SecurityRegimes," in Tehranian,WorldsApart,
p.
35.
7.
United
Nations
Development Programme,
Human
Development eport,
994
New
York:Oxford
University
ress,
1994),
p.
22.
8.
Ibid.,
p.
23.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
5/17
International
ecurity
6:2
190
of the
report dentify
even
specific
lements
hat
omprise
human
security:
1)
economic
ecurity
e.g.,
freedom rom
overty);
2)
food
security e.g.,
access
to
food);
(3)
health
security e.g.,
access to
health
care and
protection
romdis-
eases);
(4)
environmental
ecurity e.g., protection
rom uch
dangers
as
envi-
ronmental
ollution
and
depletion);
5)
personal security e.g., physical
safety
from uch
things
s
torture, ar,
criminal
ttacks,
omestic
violence,
drug
use,
suicide,
and even
traffic
ccidents);
6)
community
ecurity e.g.,
survival
of
traditional
ultures nd ethnic
groups
as well as the
physical security
f
these
groups);
and
(7)
political security e.g., enjoyment
f civil and
political rights,
and freedom rom
political oppression).
This list s so broad that t is
difficult
to determine
what,
f
anything,might
be
excluded from he definition f
hu-
man
security.
ndeed the drafters f the
report
eem
distinctly
ninterested
n
establishing ny
definitional
oundaries.
Instead
they
make a
point
of
com-
mending
the
"all-encompassing"
nd
"integrative"
ualities
of the human se-
curityconcept,
which
they apparently
view
as
among
the
concept's major
strengths.9
Today
the UNDP's
1994
definition f human
security
remains the most
widely cited and "most authoritative" ormulation f the term,10lthough
differentmembers
of
the human
security
coalition have customized the
definition o suittheir wn
particular
nterests.
ccording
o
the
government
f
Japan,
for
example,
the
concept
of human
security
comprehensively
overs
all the measures that threatenhuman
survival,
daily
life,
and
dignity-for
example,
environmental
degradation,
violations of human
rights,
transna-
tional
organized
crime,
llicit
drugs, refugees,
poverty, nti-personnel
and-
mines and...infectiousdiseases such
as AIDS-and
strengthens
fforts o
confront hese
threats."'l
Other
states,
uch as
Canada,
have
promoted
more
restrictive efinition fhumansecurity s "freedomfrom ervasivethreats o
people's
rights, safety
or lives."12
But even this
slightly
narrower
con-
9.
Ibid.,
p.
24.
10.
John
G.
Cockell,
"Conceptualising
Peacebuilding:
Human
Security
nd Sustainable
Peace,"
in
Michael
Pugh,
ed.,
Regeneration
f
War-Tornocieties
London:
Macmillan, 2000),
p.
21.
11.
JapaneseMinistry
f
Foreign
Affairs,
iplomatic
luebook,
999,
chap.
2,
sec.
3.
See also "State-
ment
by
Director-General ukio Takasu
at
the
nternational
onference n
Human
Security
n a
Globalized
World,"
Ulan
Bator,
May
8,
2000.
Both
documents re
reproduced
on the
Japanese
for-
eign
ministry's
web site
at
http://www.mofa.go.jp
accessed
on
February
14,
2001).
12.
Canadian
foreignministry
eb
site:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreignp/humansecurity/
menu-e.asp
accessed
on
February
14,
2001).
See also
the
statement
y
former anadian
Foreign
Minister loyd Axworthy,Canada and Human Security: he Need forLeadership," nternational
Journal,
ol.
52,
No. 2
(Spring
1997),
pp.
183-196.
Since
eaving
his
post
as
foreign
minister
n
2000,
Axworthy
as continued o
espouse
the
concept
of human
security;
ee
Lloyd Axworthy,
Human
Security
nd Global Governance:
Putting
People
First,"
Global
Governance,
ol.
7,
No.
1
(January-
March
2001),
pp.
19-23.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
6/17
Human
Security
91
ceptualization
of
human
security
s
sweeping
and
open-ended: Among
other
things,
he
Canadian formulation ncludes
safety
from
physical
threats,
he
achievementof an
acceptable
quality
of
life,
guarantee
of fundamental
hu-
man
rights,
he rule of
aw,
good governance,
ocial
equity,
rotection
f civil-
ians
in
conflicts,
nd sustainable
development.13
Meanwhile the human
security
etwork-which,
n
addition to
Canada,
Norway,
nd
Japan,
ncludes
several other tates
and
a
broad
assortment
f
international
GOs-has com-
mitted
tself
o the
goal
of
"strengthening
uman
security
with a view
to creat-
ing
a more humaneworldwhere
people
can live in
security
nd
dignity,
ree
fromwant and
fear,
nd with
equal
opportunities
o
develop
their
human
po-
tential
o the full."14 he sentiments mbodied
in
these
statements
re honor-
able,
but
they
do
little to
clarify
he
meaning
or
boundaries
of the human
security oncept.
Some academic
writings
n the
subject
have been
similarly
paque.
Many
works amount
to
restatements r revisionsof
the
UNDP's
laundry
ist
of
hu-
man
security
ssues.
Jorge
Nef,
for
example,
devises a fivefold lassification
scheme,
arguing
that
human
security
omprises
1)
environmental,
ersonal,
and physicalsecurity,2) economicsecurity,3) social security,ncluding free-
dom fromdiscrimination ased on
age, gender, thnicity,
r
social
status,"
4)
political security,
nd
(5)
cultural
ecurity,
r
"the set of
psychological
orienta-
tions of
society
geared
to
preserving
nd
enhancing
the
ability
o
controlun-
certainty
nd fear."15 aura
Reed
and
Majid
Tehranian
offer
heirown list of
human
security's
en constituent
lements-including psychological
security,
which
"hinges
on
establishing
onditions
fostering espectful,oving,
nd
hu-
mane
interpersonal
elations,"
nd communication
ecurity,
r
the
mportance
of "freedom and balance
in
information lows."16Other scholars avoid
the
laundrylist approach,but offer qually expansive definitions.Accordingto
Caroline
Thomas,
human
security
refers
o the
provision
of "basic material
needs" and the
realization
of "human
dignity," ncluding emancipation
from
oppressive
power
structures-be
they
global,
national,
or
local
in
origin
and
scope."17
For Robert
Bedeski,
human
security
ncludes "the
totality
f knowl-
edge, technology,
nstitutions nd activities hat
protect,
efend
and
preserve
the
biological
existence of human
life;
and the
processes
which
protect
nd
13.
Axworthy,
Canada and Human
Security,"
.
184.
14. "Chairman's Summary," econd MinisterialMeetingof the Human SecurityNetwork.
15.
Nef,
Human
Security
nd
Mutual
Vulnerability,.
25.
16. Reed and
Tehranian,
Evolving Security
Regimes," pp.
39
and
47.
17.
Caroline
Thomas, "Introduction,"
n
Thomas
and
Wilkin,Globalization,
uman
Security,
nd the
African xperience, .
3.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
7/17
International
ecurity
6:2
92
perfect
ollective
peace
and
prosperity
o enhance human freedom."18
gain,
f
human
security
s all these
things,
what is
it not?
A
Guide
for
Research nd
Policymaking?
Policymakers
nd
scholars face
different,
ut
related,
problems
n
attempting
to
put
these definitions f human
security
nto
practical
use. For
policymakers,
the
challenge
s to move
beyond all-encompassing
xhortations nd
to
focus
on
specific
olutions to
specific
political
ssues. This is a difficultask not
only
because
of the broad
sweep
and definitional
lasticity
f most formulations f
human
security
but
also-and
perhaps
even more
problematically-because
the
proponents
f human
security
re
typically
eluctant o
prioritize
he
um-
ble of
goals
and
principles
hatmake
up
the
concept.
As noted
above,
part
of
the ethicof the human
security
movement s
to
emphasize
the "inclusiveness"
and
"holism" of the
term,
which
n
practice
eems to mean
treating
ll interests
and
objectives
within
he movement s
equally
valid.
Reed
and
Tehranian,
or
instance,
fter
resenting
heir ist of ten constituent
ategories
f human secu-
rity,onclude with this caveat: "It is important o reiterate hattheseoverlap-
ping categories
do
not
represent
hierarchy
f
security
eeds from
ersonal
to
national, nternational,
nd
environmental
ights.
On the
contrary,
ach
realm
impinges upon
the
others
nd is
intrinsically
onnectedto
wider
political
and
economic considerations."19
he observation
that
all human and natural
realms are
fundamentally
nterrelated
s a
truism,
nd does not
provide
a
very
convincing
ustification
or
treating
ll
needs, values,
and
policy
objectives
s
equally important.
Nor does it
help
decisionmakers
n
their
daily
task
of
allo-
cating
scarce resources
mong competinggoals:
After
ll,
not
everything
an
be a matter fnationalsecurity, ithall of theurgency hatthisterm mplies.
To
put
it
simply,
human
security
is
too
broad and
vague
a
concept
to be
meaningful
or
policymakers,
s
it
has come
to
entail such a wide
range
of dif-
ferent hreats
n one
hand,
while
prescribing
diverse and sometimes ncom-
patible
set of
policy
solutions
to
resolve them
on the
other."20
For those who
study,
ather han
practice,
nternational
olitics,
he
task of
transforming
he dea of human
security
nto
a
useful
analytical
ool
for
chol-
18.
Robert
Bedeski,
"Human
Security,
Knowledge,
and the Evolution
of
the Northeast Asian
State,"
Centre for Global
Studies,
University
of
Victoria,
February
8,
2000,
http://
www.globalcentres.org/docs/bedeski.htmlaccessed on February14,2001).
19.
Reed and
Tehranian,
Evolving Security
Regimes," p.
53.
20.
Owens and
Arneil,
The Human
SecurityParadigm
Shift,"
.
2.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
8/17
Human
Security
93
arly
research
s also
problematic.
Given
the
hodgepodge
of
principles
nd ob-
jectives
ssociated
with the
concept,
t
s far
from
lear what academics should
even be
studying.
Human
security
eems
capable
of
supportingvirtually
ny
hypothesis-along
with ts
opposite-depending
on the
prejudices
and inter-
ests of the
particular
esearcher.
urther,
ecause the
concept
of human
secu-
rity ncompasses
both
physical security
nd
more
general
notions of
social,
economic,
ultural,
nd
psychologicalwell-being,
t s
impractical
o
talk about
certain ocioeconomic factors
causing"
an
increase or decline
in
human
secu-
rity,
iven
that hese factors re themselves
part
of the definition fhumanse-
curity.
The
study
of
causal
relationships requires
a
degree
of
analytical
separation
that the
notion of human
security
acks.21
To
illustrate hese
problems,
onsider
John
Cockell's
efforts
o
apply
the hu-
man
security oncept
to the
phenomenon
of
nternational
eacebuilding oper-
ations
in
countries
t risk
of
slipping
nto,
or
just
emerging
from,
ivil
war.22
After
mbracing
he
open-ended
UNDP definition f human
security,
ockell
states
that
"peacebuilding
s a sustained
process
of
preventing
nternal hreats
to
human
security
rom
ausing protracted,
iolentconflict."23
et because the
UNDP definition f human securityncludes safety rom iolenceas a central
component
of
human
security,
ockell
is
effectivelyaying
that
peacebuilding
seeks to
prevent
decline
n
human
security
rom
ausing
a decline
n
human
security,
hich
makes
little
ense. He
then
dentifies
fourbasic
parameters,"
based on the
principles
of
human
security,
or
the
conduct
of
peacebuilding
operations:
Peacebuilders
should
focus on root causes of
conflicts,
ay
atten-
tion to the
differences
n
local conditionsfrom
ne
operation
to
the
next,
eek
sustainable nd durable
results,
nd
mobilize ocal
actors
nd
resources
n
sup-
port
of
peace.
Although
these
guidelines
seem
reasonable,
the
sprawling
con-
cept of human securitycould support many more-and quite different-
principles
for
peacebuilding.
Indeed
Cockell himself
cknowledges
that his
policy
prescriptions
re
"arbitrary,"
hich
belies the
notion thathuman secu-
rity
entails
a
particular
"orientation" toward
peacebuilding,
as Cockell
claims.24More
generally,
f
human
security
means
almost
anything,
hen t
ef-
fectively
means
nothing.25
21. Suhrke
makes a similar
point
n
"Human
Security
nd the
nterests
f
States,"
pp.
270-271.
22.
Cockell,
"Conceptualising Peacebuilding."
23.
Ibid.,
p.
21.
24.
Ibid.,
pp.
26,
21.
25. On the
problem
of
"conceptual stretching,"
ee GiovanniSartori,
Concept
Misinformationn
Comparative
Politics,"
American olitical
cience
Review,
ol.
64,
No.
4
(December
1970),
pp.
1033-
1053.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
9/17
International
ecurity
6:2 94
Attempts
o
Narrow he
Concept
One
possible remedy
for he
expansiveness
and
vagueness
of human
security
is
to
redefine he
concept
n
much
narrower nd more
precise
terms,
o
that
t
might
ffer
better
uide
for
research
nd
policymaking.
his is the
approach
that
Gary King
and
Christopher
Murray
have
adopted
in
their
ngoing project
on human
security.26
ing
and
Murray
offer definition
f human
security
that s intended
to
include
only
"essential"
elements,
meaning
elements
that
are
"important nough
for human
beings
to
fight
ver or to
put
their ives
or
property
t
great
risk."27
sing
this
standard,
hey dentify
ive
key
ndica-
tors of
well-being-poverty,
health,
ducation,
political
freedom,
nd democ-
racy-that they
intend to
incorporate
nto an
overall
measure of
human
security
or ndividuals
and
groups. Similarly,
nother
scholar,
Kanti
Bajpai,
proposes
construction
f
a
"human
security
udit" that would include mea-
sures
of "direct nd indirect
hreats
o
individual
bodily safety
nd
freedom,"
as well as measures of different
ocieties'
"capacity
to
deal
with
these
threats,
namely,
the
fostering
f
norms,
nstitutions,
nd
. .
.
representativeness
n
decisionmakingstructures."28 lthoughboth projectsare still in the early
stages
of
development, heyrepresent
welcome effortst
operationalizing
he
concept
of human
security
with a
more
precise
definition f the term.
A
clear
measure or audit of human
security
would allow scholars to
assess the factors
that ead to declines or increases
n the
human
security
f
particular
roups
or
individuals.29
Both of these
projects,
however,
face
problems
that seem endemic
to
the
study
of
human
security.
irst,
hey
dentify
ertainvalues as more
mportant
than otherswithout
providing
clear
ustification
or
doing
so.
Bajpai,
for n-
stance,proposes inclusion of "bodily safety" nd "personal freedom" n his
human
security
udit,
and
argues
that
this
audit would draw attention o
the
fact hat threats o
safety
nd freedom re themost
mportant"
lements f
hu-
26.
Gary King
and
Christopher
Murray, Rethinking
uman
Security,"
arvard
University, ay
4,
2000,
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/hs.pdf
accessed
on
February
14,
2001).
27.
Ibid.,
p.
8.
28.
Kanti
Bajpai,
"Human
Security: oncept
and
Measurement,"
Kroc Institute ccasional
Paper
No.
19:OP:1
(Notre
Dame,
Ind.:
University
f Notre
Dame,
August
2000),
http://www.nd.edu/
?krocinst/ocpapers/op_19_1.PDF
accessed
on
February
14,
2001).
29. In addition
to these
projects,
n
January
4, 2001,
the United Nations and the
government
f
Japan
nnounced
plans
to
establish Commission
on Human
Security,
hich will be
cochaired
by
Nobel laureate AmartyaSen and formerUN High Commissioner forHuman RightsSadako
Ogata.
See
"Independent
Panel on Human
Security'
To
Be
Set
Up,"
Agence
France-Press,
anuary
24,
2001.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
10/17
Human
Security
95
man
security.30
e does
not
explain,
however,
why
other values are
not
equally,
or
perhaps
even
more,
mportant
han
the
values he
champions.
What
about education?
s the
ability
o choose one's
marriage
partner,
which
is
one
of
Bajpai's examples
of
personal
freedom,
eally
more
important
han,
say,
a
good
education?
Perhaps
t
s,
but
Bajpai
does
not
address
this
ssue.
Similarly,
King
and
Murray
tate thattheir ormulation
f human
security
ncludes
only
those matters hat
people
would be
willing
to
fight
ver.But
theyneglect
o of-
fer
vidence
that
theirfive ndicators
re,
n
fact,
losely
related to the risk of
violent conflict.n other
words,
they
favorcertainvalues as
representative
f
human
security
without
ffering
clear
ustification
or
doing
so.
Additionally,
theirdecision to exclude indicators f violence from
heir
omposite
measure
of human
security
reates a de factodistinction etween human
security
nd
physical security, hereby urging
the
most
familiar onnotation f
security-
safety
rom iolence-from their efinition f human
security.
nder
the
King-
Murray
formulation,
ndividuals could find hemselves
n
the
strangeposition
of
enjoying
a
high
level of human
security
low
poverty,
easonable health
care,
good
education,
political
freedom,
nd
democracy),
while
facing
rela-
tivelyhighriskofbecomingvictims fdeadlyviolence. One need onlythink f
residents
of
certain
neighborhoods
n
Belfast,
who
might
not
consider
them-
selves
very
secure."
Thus
the
challenge
for hese
scholars s
not
simply
o nar-
row the definition
f
human
security
nto a
more
analytically
ractable
oncept,
but to
provide
a
compelling
rationalefor
highlighting
ertainvalues.
This
raises another
problem. Defining
the core
values of
human
security
may
be
difficult ot
only
because
there s so little
greement
n the
meaning
of
human
security,
ut
because the term's
mbiguity
erves
a
particular urpose:
It unites a diverse and sometimes fractious oalition of
states and
organiza-
tions that see an opportunityocapture omeofthe more substantial olitical
interest
nd
superior
financial resources" associated
with
more
traditional,
military onceptions
of
security.31
hese actors have
in
effect
ursued
a
politi-
cal
strategy
f
"appropriating"
the term
"security,"
which
conveys
urgency,
demands
public
attention,
nd
commands
governmental
esources.32
y
main-
30.
Ibid.,
p.
53
(emphasis
added).
31.
King
and
Murray, Rethinking
uman
Security,"
.
4.
See also Mahbub ul
Haq,
Reflections
n
Human
Development,
xp.
ed.
(Delhi:
Oxford
University
ress,
1998).
On
the
strategic
se of
the
term
security"
s
a tool
for
hangingpolicy
or
obtaining
esources,
ee
Emma
Rothschild,
What
Is
Security?"
Dxdalus,
Vol.
124,
No.
3
(Summer
1995),
pp.
58-59.
32. On theurgency hat s automatically ssociatedwith theconceptof nationalsecurity,ee Da-
vid
E.
Sanger,
Sometimes
National
Security
ays
It
All,"
New York
imes,
Week
n
Review,
May
7,
2000,
p.
3.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
11/17
8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
12/17
8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
13/17
International
ecurity
6:2 98
Figure
1.
A
Matrix of
Security
Studies
What s the
Source
of
the
Security
Threat?
Military
States
Security
for
Whom?
Societies,
Groups,
nd
Individuals
Military,
onmilitary,
r
Both
Cell
1 Cell 2
National
ecurity
Redefined
ecurity
(conventional
ealist
(e.g.,
environmental
nd
approach
to
security
economic
security)
studies)
Cell
3
Cell
4
Intrastate
ecurity
Human
security
(e.g.,
civilwar,
ethnic
(e.g.,
environmentalnd
conflict,
nd
democide)
economic hreats o
the
survival f
ocieties,
groups,ndindividuals)
tains
four
cells,
each
representing
different
luster f
iterature
n
the field.
assume that
"security
hreat"
onnotes ome
type
of
menace to
survival.
The
top
halfof the
map
includes
works thatfocus on
security
hreats o
states;
the
bottomhalf
omprises
works that onsider
ecurity
hreats o
societies,
groups,
and
individuals. The left ide of the matrix
hows
literature hat focuses on
military
hreats,
nd the
right
ide on
military
r
nonmilitary
hreats,
r
both.
These divisions
produce
the
following
fourfold
ypology f the field:
*
Cell
1
contains
works that
concentrate
n
military
hreats
o the
security
f
states.
Conventional
realists
end
to
adopt
this
perspective,
which has tradi-
tionally
dominated
academic
security
tudies,
particularly
n
the
United
States.39Most of the
articles
published
in International
ecurity,
or
xample,
fall nto
this
category.
39.
See,
for
xample,
Walt,
The Renaissance of
Security
tudies";
Richard
K.
Betts,
Should Stra-
tegic
Studies Survive?"
World
olitics,
ol.
50,
No.
1
(October
1997),
pp.
7-33;
Michael
E.
Brown,
Owen
R.
Cot6, Jr.,
ean
M.
Lynn-Jones,
nd
Steven E.
Miller, ds.,
America's
trategic
hoices,
ev.
ed. (Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press,2000);David A. Baldwin,"Security tudies and theEnd of the
Cold
War,"
World
olitics,
Vol.
48,
No.
1
(October
1995),
pp.
117-141;
and
Joseph
S.
Nye,
Jr.,
nd
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
14/17
Human
Security
99
*
Cell
2
contains
works
that
ddress
nonmilitary
hreats
instead
of,
r n addi-
tion
to,
military
hreats)
o the national
security
f
states,
ncluding
environ-
mental
and economic
challenges.
Jessica
Tuchman Mathews's
much-cited
1989
article,
Redefining ecurity,"
s
typical
of
this
category.
Mathews
ar-
gues
that
foreign
ecurity olicies
should
incorporate
onsiderations f envi-
ronmental
estruction,
mong
other
hings,
ut she stillconsiders
the
state,
rather
han substate
ctors,
o be the salient
object
of
security.40
ther exam-
ples
of such
work
nclude
the Palme Commission's
1982
report,
ommon e-
curity,
hich
argued
thatnuclear
weapons posed
a threat
o
the survival
of
all
states;41
nvestigations
nto the
relationship
etween environmental
eg-
radation and international
rmed
conflict;42
nd
studies of
foreign
conomic
policy
and international
ecurity.43
*
Cell
3
includes works
that focus on
military
hreats o
actors
other than
states:
namely
ocieties,
roups,
nd
individuals.
The
prevalence
of ntrastate
violence since
the end of the Cold War
has
given
rise to a
large
iterature n
intrastate
onflicts,
n
which substate
groups
are the
principal
belligerents.44
Sean M.
Lynn-Jones,
International
ecurity
tudies:
A
Report
of a
Conference
n the State of the
Field,"
International
ecurity,
ol.
12,
No.
4
(Spring
1988),
pp.
5-27.
40.
Mathews,
"Redefining
Security."
See
also
Ullmann,
"Redefining
Security";
and
Joseph
J.
Romm,
Defining
National
Security:
he
Nonmilitary
spects
New
York:
Council
on
Foreign
Rela-
tions,
1993).
41.
Independent
Commission
on
Disarmament nd
Security
ssues,
Common
ecurity: Blueprint
for
Survival
New
York: Simon
and
Schuster,
982).
42.
See,
for
example,
Thomas
F
Homer-Dixon,Environment,
carcity,
nd Violence
Princeton,
N.J.:
Princeton
University
ress,1999);
and Nils Peter
Gleditsch,
Armed Conflict nd the Environment:
A
Critique
of the
Literature,"
ournal
f
Peace
Research,
ol.
35,
No. 3
(May
1998),
pp.
381-400.
For
an excellent
bibliography,
ee
Geoffrey
.
Dabelko,
ed.,
Environmental
hange
nd
Security
roject
Report,
No. 6
(Summer
2000),
pp.
232-238,
also available
at
http://ecsp.si.edu/pdf/Report6-
10.pdf
accessed
on
May
5,
2001).
43. See, for
xample,
Jean-Marc Blanchard, dwardD. Mansfield, nd NorrinM.
Ripsman,
ds.,
Power
nd the urse:Economic
tatecraft,nterdependence,
nd National
ecurity
London:
Frank
Cass,
2000),
originallypublished
as
a
special
issue of
Security
tudies,
Vol.
9,
Nos.
1-2
(Autumn
1999-
Winter
000),
pp.
1-316;
C.
Fred
Bergsten,
America's Two-Front conomic
Conflict,"
oreignAf-
fairs,
Vol.
80,
No.
2
(March-April
2001),
pp.
16-27;
Richard N.
Haass,
ed.,
Economic anctions nd
American
iplomacy
New
York:
Council
on
Foreign
Relations, 998);
and
Jonathan
irschner,
Po-
litical Economic
in
Security
tudies after
he Cold
War,"
Review
f
nternationalolitical
conomy,
Vol.
5,
No.
1
(Spring
1998),
pp.
64-91.
44.
See,
for
example,
John
Mueller,
"The
Banality
of Ethnic
War,"'
nternational
ecurity,
ol.
25,
No. 1
(Summer
2000),
pp.
42-70;
Benjamin
Valentino,
Final
Solutions:The Causes of
Mass
Killing
and
Genocide,"
Security
tudiesVol.
9,
No. 3
(Spring
2000),
pp.
1-59;
Barbara
F.
Walter
nd
Jack
Snyder,
ds.,
Civil
Wars,
nsecurity,
nd Intervention
New
York:Columbia
University
ress,
1999);
Beverly
Crawford
nd Ronnie
D.
Lipschutz,
eds.,
The
Myth f
Ethnic
Conflict':
olitics, conomics,
and 'Cultural'ViolenceBerkeley: nternational nd Area Studies,University fCalifornia,1998);
Chaim
Kaufmann,
Possible
and
Impossible
Solutions to
EthnicCivil
Wars,"
nternational
ecurity,
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
15/17
International
ecurity
6:2
|
100
In
addition,
tudies of
"democide,"
or
the
ntentional
illingby
a stateof ts
own
citizens,
lso fall nto this
category.45
*
Cell
4
is concerned
with
military
r
nonmilitary
hreats-or both-to the se-
curity
f
societies,
groups,
and
individuals. Does
poverty,
or
xample,
fuel
violence
within
societies?46 re
certain
types
of
domestic
political
institu-
tionsmore conducive to
domestic
peace?47
s
the
degree
of urbanization f a
society,
r access to
medical
care,
associated
with
the occurrence f civil vio-
lence?48What other
ocietal conditions
pose
a
particular
anger
to
the sur-
vival of
groups
and individuals?All of these
questions
would fall nto the
category
f
research hat label
"human
security."
Vol.
20,
No.
4
(Spring
1996),
pp.
136-175;
Donald M.
Snow,
UncivilWars: nternational
ecurity
nd
the
New
Internal
Conflicts
Boulder,
Colo.:
Lynne
Rienner,1996);
Michael
E.
Brown,
ed.,
Ethnic
Conflict
nd International
ecurity
Princeton,
N.J.:
Princeton
University
Press,
1993);
and
Roy
Licklider,
d.,
Stopping
he
Killing:
How Civil Wars End
(New
York: New York
University
ress,
1993).
45.
See,
for
xample,
R.J.
Rummel,
PowerKills:
Democracy
s a
Method
f
Non-Violence
New
Bruns-
wick,
N.J.:
Transaction, 997);
Gerald
W.
Scully,
Democide and
Genocide
as
Rent-Seeking
ctiv-
ities,"PublicChoice,Vol. 93, Nos. 1-2 (October 1997), pp. 77-97; and MatthewKrain, "State-
Sponsored
Mass Murder:The
Onset and
Severity
f Genocides and
Politicides,"
Journal
f
Conflict
Resolution,
ol.
41,
No. 3
(June
1997),
pp.
331-360.
46.
Steve
Majstorovic,
Politicized
Ethnicity
nd
Economic
nequality,"
Nationalism
nd
Ethnic
oli-
tics,
Vol.
1,
No.
1
(Spring
1995),
pp.
33-53;
Walker
Connor,
Eco- or
Ethno-Nationalism,"
n
Connor,
Ethnonationalism:he
Quest
forUnderstanding
Princeton,
N.J.:
Princeton
University
ress, 1994),
pp.
145-164;
Ted
Robert
Gurr,
Why
MinoritiesRebel:
A
Global
Analysis
of
Communal Mobiliza-
tion and Conflict ince
1945,"
International
oliticalScience
Review,
Vol.
14,
No.
2
(April
1993),
pp.
161-201;
Saul
Newman,
"Does Modernization Breed EthnicConflict?"World
olitics,
Vol.
43,
No. 3
(April
1991),
pp.
451-478;
James
B.
Rule,
Theories
f
CivilViolence
(Berkeley:
University
f Cal-
ifornia
ress, 1988);
Steven Finkel and
James
B.
Rule,
"Relative
Deprivation
and Related Theories
of Civil Violence:
A
Critical
Review,"
n Kurt
Lang
and
Gladys
Lang,
eds.,
Research
n
SocialMove-
ments,
onflicts,
nd
Change
Greenwich,
onn.:
JAI, 986),
Vol.
9,
pp.
47-69;
Ted
Robert
Gurr,
Why
Men Rebel
Princeton,
N.J.:
Princeton
University
ress,
1970);
and William Ford and
John
Moore,
"Additional Evidence on the Social Characteristics f RiotCities,"Social ScienceQuarterly,ol. 51,
No.
2
(September
1970),
pp.
339-348.
47.
Havard
Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen,
Nils Petter
Gleditsch,
nd
Scott
Gales,
"Towards a Democratic
Civil Peace?
Opportunity,
rievance,
nd
Civil
War, 816-1992,"
paper
presented
o the
workshop
Civil
Conflicts,
rime,
nd
Violence
n
Developing
Countries,
World
Bank,
Washington,
.C.,
Feb-
ruary
1999;
Matthew Krain and
Marissa
Edson
Myers,
Democracy
and Civil War:
A
Note
on
the
Democratic
Peace
Proposition,"
nternational
nteractions,
ol.
23,
No.
1
(June
1997),
pp.
109-118;
and
Michael
Engelhardt,
Democracies,
Dictatorships,
nd
Counterinsurgency:
oes
Regime Type
Really
Matter?"
Conflict uarterly,
ol.
12,
No. 3
(Summer
1992),
pp.
52-63.
48.
These
two
factors,
mong
others,
re studied in
Daniel
C.
Esty,
Jack
A.
Goldstone,
Ted
Robert
Gurr,
Barbara
Harff,
Marc
Levy,Geoffrey
.
Dabelko,
Pamela T.
Surko,
and Alan N.
Unger,
tate
FailureTaskForce
Report:
hase I
Findings
McLean,
Va.:
Science
Applications
nternational
orpo-
ration,
998).
For a
critique
f this
report,
ee
Gary King
and
Langche Zeng,
"Improving
orecasts
ofStateFailure,"paper preparedfor heMidwestPolitical cience Associationmeeting nChicago,
Illinois,
November
13, 2000,
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/civil.pdf
accessed
on
May
5,
2001).
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
16/17
Human
Security
101
Using
the term "human
security"
o
describe this
type
of
scholarship
has
several
advantages.
First,
he contents f
cell
4
echo
many
of
the concernsof
the human
security
oalition,
o it
makes intuitive ense to use
this terminol-
ogy.
Second,
employing
human
security
s
a label for broad
category
f re-
search eliminatesthe
problem
of
deriving
clear
hypotheses
from he
human
security oncept
tself-a
concept
that,
have
argued,
offersittle
nalytical
e-
verage
because it is so
sprawling
and
ambiguous.
Consequently,
cholars
working
n
the "human
security
ranch" of
security
tudies would
not need to
adjudicate
the merit or
validity
of human
securityper
se,
but
rather
they
would focus on more
specific uestions
that ould be
clearly
defined
and
per-
haps
even
answered).
Third,
and
relatedly,
lthough many
scholars
in
this
branchof
security
tudies
may
be interested n
normative
uestions
as well as
empirical
ones,
the
advantage
of
using
human
security
s
a
descriptive
abel
for
a class
of
research
s
that the label would not
presuppose any particular
normative
genda.49
Fourth,
mapping
the field
in
this
manner-with human
security
s one
branch-helps
to
differentiatehe
principal
nontraditional
pproaches
to secu-
rity tudies from ne another.With hebroadening nd deepeningofsecurity
studies
in
recent
years,
t is no
longer helpful
or
reasonable to definethe field
in
dualistic terms:
with
the
realist, tate-centric,
ilitary-minded
pproach
to
security
tudies at the core and
a
disorderly
azaar of alternative
pproaches
in
the
periphery.
hese
alternative
pproaches actually
fall nto broad
group-
ings
and have become
sufficientlymportant
o merit heirown
classification
scheme.
Mapping
the field
n
new
ways
can
help
us to understandhow
these
approaches
relate to more traditional
pproaches
to
security
tudies,
and to
one another.
Finally,
the
very fashionability
f the
label "human
security"
could benefit cholarsbydrawingattention oexistingworks within ell4 and
opening up
new areas of research
n
this branch of the field.
Of
course,
the
boundaries between these four
quadrants
are not
absolute.
Environmental
egradation,
or
xample, may simultaneously ose
a threat o
the survival of states and
substate
ctors,
nd could thus full nto either ell
2
or cell
4.50The
permeability
f these
boundaries, however,
s
not a
significant
49.
Scholars
may
conclude,
for
xample,
that ertain ocioeconomic conditions re not
associated
with
any particular
hreats o human survival.
50. StevenJ.Del Rosso, Jr., The Insecure State:Reflections n 'The State' and 'Security' n a
Changing
World,"
Dxdalus,
Vol.
124,
No.
2
(Spring
1995),
p.
185.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:59:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Roland Paris Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air
17/17
International
ecurity
6:2
1
102
problem
for cholarsbecause each
quadrant
represents
broad
category
f re-
search-or
a clusterof issues and
questions,
rather han a distinct ausal
hy-
pothesis
or
theory-which
would need to be more
clearly pecified.
Conclusion
Human
security
as been described as
many
different
hings: rallying ry,
political
campaign,
a set of beliefs
bout
the sources of
violent
conflict,
new
conceptualization
f
security,
nd a
guide
for
policymakers
nd academic re-
searchers.
As a
rallying ry,
he
dea
of
human
security
as
successfully
nited
a diverse
coalition of
states,
nternational
gencies,
and NGOs. As a
political
campaign,
the human
security
oalitionhas
accomplished
a numberof
specific
goals,
such as the
negotiation
f the and mines convention.But as a new con-
ceptualization
of
security,
r a set of beliefsabout the sources of
conflict,
u-
man
security
s so
vague
that
t
verges
on
meaninglessness-and consequently
offers ittle
practicalguidance
to
academics who
might
be interested
n
apply-
ing
the
concept,
r to
policymakers
who must
prioritize mong competing ol-
icy goals. Efforts o sharpenthe definition fhumansecurity re a step in the
right
direction,
ut
they
are
likely
to encounterresistancefrom
ctors
who
believe
that the
concept's strength
ies
in
its holism and inclusiveness.
Definitional
xpansiveness
and
ambiguity
re
powerful
attributes
f
human
security,
ut
only
n
the sense that
hey
facilitate ollective ction
by
the mem-
bers of the human
security
oalition.The
very
ame
qualities,
however,
hobble
the
concept
of
human
security
s a useful tool of
analysis.
On the other
hand,
human
security
ould
provide
a
handy
abel for
broad
category
f
research-
a
distinct ranchof
security
tudies that
xplores
the
particular
onditions hat
affecthesurvival of ndividuals,groups,and societies-that mayalso help to
establishthis brand of
research s a central
omponent
of the
security
tudies
field.