Human security discourse and practice have been embraced by a number of States as a means to address our current security dilemmas. At the same time, human security literature is advanced as an alternative vision of world politics that moves past the State-centric analysis of traditional security studies. What is unclear is whether these two aspects of human security, its practice and intent, are compatible. There are two related questions that must then be addressed. The first is whether human security practice has actually benefited peoples, which will be approached by exploring the types of policies that have been put in place in the name of human security. This then brings up the second, and perhaps more profound, question: has the adoption of human security frameworks had the effect of changing the way that we “do” security policy, or has it merely widened the range of issues to which traditional security practices are applied? This paper will draw examples predominately from the current international involvement in Afghanistan.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Axworthy, L., 2001, Human security and global governance: Putting people first, Glob. Gov. 7(1):19–23.
Behnke, A., 2006, No way out: Desecuritization, emancipation and the eternal return of the political—a reply to Aradau, J. Int. Rel. Dev. 9(1):62–69.
Booth, K. (ed.), 2005, Critical Security Studies and World Politics, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
Bowes, R., 2001, Sacrifice and the categorical imperative of human security, Int. J. 56(4):649–664.
Busumtwi-Sam, J., 2002, Development and human security, Int. J. 53(2):253–272.
Commission on Human Security, 2002, Report of the Third Meeting of the Commission on Human Security, Haga Castle, Stockholm, 9–10 June.
Grayson, K., 2003, Securitization and the boomerang debate: A rejoinder to Liotta and Smith-Windsor, Secur. Dialogue 34(3):337–343.
Liotta, P. H., 2002, Boomerang effect: The convergence of national and human security, Secur. Dialogue 33(4):473–488.
MacLean, G., 2000, Instituting and projecting human security: A Canadian perspective, Aust. J. Int. Aff. 54(3):269–276.
McNerney, M. J., 2005–06, Stabilization and reconstruction in Afghanistan: Are PRTs a model or a muddle? Parameters (Winter): 32–46.
Newman, E., 2001, Human security and constructivism, Int. Stud. Persp. 2(3):239–251.
Paris, R., 2001, Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? Int. Security 26(2):87–102.
Rubin, B. R., 2006, Peace building and state-building in Afghanistan: Constructing sovereignty for whose security? Third World Q. 27(1):175–185.
Slim, H., 2001, Violence and humanitarianism: Moral paradox and the protection of civilians, Secur. Dialogue 32(3):325–339.
Taureck, R., 2006, Securitization theory and securitization studies, J. Int. Rel. Dev. 9(1):53–61.
Tomlinson, B., 2002, Defending humane internationalism: The role of Canadian NGOs in a security-conscious era, Int. J. 57(2):273–282.
Wæver, O., 2004, Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen New Schools in Security Theory and the Origins between Core and Periphery, Paper presented at the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Conference, Montreal, March.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this paper
Cite this paper
Christie, R. (2008). The Human Security Dilemma. In: Liotta, P.H., Mouat, D.A., Kepner, W.G., Lancaster, J.M. (eds) Environmental Change and Human Security: Recognizing and Acting on Hazard Impacts. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8551-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8551-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8550-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8551-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)