In-Depth Notes on International Security and Human Security

Global issues present significant security challenges at both state and international levels.
The discipline of International Relations (IR) provides insights into these issues.
A comprehensive understanding requires knowledge of historical, theoretical, and structural contexts covered earlier in related studies.
IR debates impact real-world implications, emphasizing that the subject is not just academic.

Security is a foundational theme in International Relations, tied to its contested nature.
Key questions include who or what should be secure—the state, the individual, or both?
There's ongoing debate about whether security power should remain with states or be entrusted to international organizations.

Traditionally, security focuses on military threats to state sovereignty.
- Max Weber's Definition: The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within defined territories.
Key historical principles, like sovereignty, originated from the Peace of Westphalia, emphasizing non-interference in states' domestic affairs.
United Nations Charter: Outlines principles related to state sovereignty and obligations to maintain peace and security.

Traditional security emphasizes state survival and military threats, termed 'national security'.
Emerging interpretations address individual well-being, known as 'human security'.
The debate revolves around definitions of security based on levels of analysis (individual vs. state).

Introduced by Mary Kaldor, 'new wars' focus on:
1. Violence among state and non-state actors.
2. Conflicts driven by identity politics (e.g., religious, ethnic).
3. Political control through terror rather than conventional warfare.
4. Financing through diverse sources, including organized crime.
Groups like ISIS exemplify this new form of warfare, combining traditional and non-traditional methods.

Shifting focus from state-centric views to include non-state actors is crucial for understanding modern security dynamics.
Critiques argue that traditional IR perspectives often overlook the experiences of marginalized groups.
Key historical critiques call for integrating recognition of structural inequalities, notably colonial legacies, into security discourses.

The 1994 UN Human Development Report outlined critical threats to human security:
1. Economic
2. Food
3. Health
4. Environmental
5. Personal
6. Community
7. Political
Historical Context: The Rwandan genocide prompted global recognition of the need for proactive human security measures.

Established in 2005, R2P states:
1. States must protect their populations from mass atrocities.
2. The international community must assist states in protecting their populations.
3. If states fail to act, the international community must intervene.
Case examples include humanitarian interventions in Libya and failures during the Rwandan Genocide, highlighting debates around sovereignty.

Gun violence in the U.S. raises questions of personal and community security,
- Greater attention often directs towards terrorism despite gun violence's higher mortality rate.
- Critique arises if the R2P framework is applicable to domestic policies regarding gun controls.

The evolution of security concepts indicates a shift from state security to a broader human security perspective.
The ongoing debate on who should be secure and how reflects deep-rooted challenges to sovereignty and necessitates new definitions and policies for global security.

Compare the key attributes and differences in 'human' and 'national' security; are they compatible?
Who or what should protect people in the global system, and are these measures robust?
Explore moral and legal justifications for one state violating another's sovereignty.
Identify groups that are most vulnerable to insecurity concerning human security.
How does understanding security debates enhance critiques of who or what should be secure?

Note

0.0(0)

Chat with Kai