International Security and Peace

Changed Nature of Intl Security, Hu-man Security, Securitization

Jaechun Kim

Changed Nature of International Security Today…

How can we define “security”? Freedom from threats… freedom from wants?

Traditional concept of (intl’) security Focus was on the security at the national level Focus was on the “national security” largely de-

fined in “military” terms… That is, focus was on the military capabilities

that states need to deal with the threats coming from outside… Why??

Because of high frequency of interstate wars…

Enemy states had been the primary source of security threats…

But is it still true in contemporary era?

Security threats are not coming from other states…

Now many pundits claim that wars between major indus-trialized countries are becoming a relic of the past…

Frequency of interstate war has decreased dramatically… one of the key characteris-tics of international security in contempo-rary era – decreased frequency of inter-state wars

However, domestic armed conflicts and civil wars continue to increase… increased frequency of intrastate wars

Decline of civil wars that are classified as “ideological” or “class-based”… and the concomitant rise of conflicts classified as ethnic…tribal…

Warfare is becoming increasingly communal-ized…

Individuals and groups are making wars• e.g., Al Qaeda

Wars = Crimes… e.g., tribal wars in sub-Saha-ran African states… read Robert Kaplan’s Com-ing Anarchy

Income and Civil War Risk Inverse relationship… Per capita income is the single best predictor

of a country’s odds of civil war outbreak This is a better indicator than ethnic or reli-

gious diversity need to build viable statehood and to pro-

vide developmental aids to failed states… Failed statehood is the primary source of all

the bad things…

Absence of War between Lead-ing Powers

Get back to the issue of decreasing interstate wars…

The US, Japan, and Western Europe have formed “security community.”

The major concern of IR has been war and the possibility of war among the great powers greatest discontinuity

But do you agree with this claim? This does not mean that there won’t be any con-

flicts between these leading countries… Churchill: “People talked a lot of nonsense when they said

nothing was ever settled by war. Nothing in history was ever settled except by war.”

Explaining the Obsolescence of Major Wars

Realist Explanation Skeptical of this claim…

American Hegemony (HST)

Nuclear Weapons Liberalism

Democracy Economic Interdependence

• Cobden: “Free Trade is God’s diplomacy and there is no other certain way of uniting people in bonds of peace.”

• Frederick Bastiat: “If goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”

International Organization and International Law

Constructivism Role of ideas and changed identity…

Through interactions and processes – social-

ization – they came to adopt norms relating to

sovereignty, territory, borders, and

conquest….

It became their inter-subjective (shared) un-

derstanding….

Human Security

Growing obsolescence of interstate wars… rather, people feel insecure because of other reasons…

Now people feel insecure because of new types of threats such as…

The process of Globalization brings in new risks and dangers. As globalization accelerates in the 21st century, such threats are interna-tionalized…. Such threats are transnational in nature…

These threats to security are largely out-side the control of nation-states.

They are not being sufficiently addressed through the traditional framework of na-tional security.

The origin of the concept goes back to the publication of the Human Development Report, issued by UNDP 1994, which argued that “ human security is not a concern with weapons, it is a concern with human life and dignity”.

Since then, the concept has provoked intellectual debates as to what purpose it should serve and how…

The concept underwent quite a few modifications…

New patterns of security threats of 21st century

Refugee Problem

Environmen-tal Degrada-

tion

Intra-state Wars

Drug Traffick-ing

Intl Terrorism

Organized Crime

Transna-tional Dis-

ease

Natural Disasters

Under-Develop-

ment; Failed Statehood

Several Characteristics of Human Security

According to 1994 UNDP Report…

Focus has to be on the individual human beings, not on nation states… referent ob-ject is individual or group… Are we se-cure?

Human Security has the characteristic of universality just like Human Rights: it is applicable to individuals everywhere…equally…

The concept is not limited to human survival; it in-cludes the right of people to exercise choices safely and freely… and that they can be fairly con-fident that the opportunities they have today will not be lost tomorrow. Safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and

repression. Protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pat-

terns of daily life - whether in homes, in jobs or communi-ties. Such threats exist at all levels of national income and development.

Very overarching concept!

States may well continue to invest in tradi-tional defense, but they are not able to deal with new problems properly…

Tensions between the Schools of Human Security

The Narrow School • HS – ‘the protection of individuals and communities

from war and other forms of violence’ (Human Secu-rity Center: 2005)

• Freedom from Fear vs. Freedom from Want (cf. UNDP)

• The role of state is still very important…

The Broad School• Freedom from Want (1994 UNDP Report)

Alkiri (2004: 360) – HS is “to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that advance human freedoms and human fulfillment.”

Underdevelopment is real threat! • Underdevelopment is source of violence

Skeptical about the role of state…

Evolution of HS (Human Security) Con-cept

HS expanded the traditional concept of security horizontally and vertically…

Horizontal dimension – issue areas: not just mili-tary security, but non military security as well… economic, environmental, educational,… etc.

Vertical dimension – referent objects: no longer state, but groups, individuals, etc.

UNDP – the broadest…

Human Development Report 1994

Horizontal dimension – All the threats

Vertical dimension – all the people in the world

Means – non state actors!

CHS (Commission on Human Security)

Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People, 2003

UNDP Report is too radical and unrealistic… imprac-tical…

Threats - Freedom from Violence!

Referent Objects - Not all humans equally, but the priority should be given to some people…

It should be given people in under-developed parts

of the world

Means - State should provide human secu-rity… cf. UNDP – skeptical of states’ role, call-ing for new global governance

Offers a more realistic solution to HS prob-lem…

UNESCO

Human Security: Approaches and Challenges, 2008

Similar to CHS’s notion of HS…

Referent Objects – people with extreme poverty in under-developed countries

Human Security: Report of the Secretary-General, 2010, 2012

Concept - HS supplements traditional concept of security, not replacing it…

Referent object – all humans

Means - Only state can provide HS…

UNDPCommission on Human Security

UNESCOReport of theSecretary -

General

Referent Ob-jects

All HumansPeople in under-developed coun-

tries

People with ex-treme poverty in

under-devel-oped countries

All Humans

Security Provider

Non state actors

State actors, IOs, NGOs, Civil Soci-

ety

State actors, IOs, NGOs, Civil Society

State

Sovereignty No Provisional Provisional Absolute

Role of the State

Source of Threat

Security Provider & Source of Threat

Security Provider & Sources of

Threat

Security Provider

UNDPCommission on Human Security

UNESCOReport of theSecretary -

General

MeansNew Forms of

Global Governance

Under the existing sovereign state

system

Under the exist-ing sovereign state system

Only under the sovereign state system

Priority

Economic Security-Food Security-Envi-ronment Security-

Civil Security-Politi-cal Security

Political Security-Civil Security-Envi-ronmental Secu-rity-Institutional

Security-Economic Security-Health

Security

Civil Security-Economic Secu-rity-Political Se-

curity-Institu-tional Security-Cultural Secu-

rity-Environmen-tal Security

Unnecessary

Can “human security” be an alternative (that is, alternative to traditional conception of national security) way of conceptualizing international security in the 21st century?

Securitization

The Copenhagen School invented this concept Wideners (Broad School): the definition of security should

encompass five different sectors – military, political, soci-etal, economic and environmental security

Allows for non-military matters to be included in security studies, but it also seeks a coherent concept of security...Coherent analytic tool…

Any specific matter can be non-politicized, politi-cized, or securitized…

An issue is non-politicized when it is not a matter for state action, and when it is not included in public debate

An issue is politicized when it is a “part of public policy, requiring government decision and resource allocations…” (Buzan, Waevaer, De Wilde 1998: 23).

A politicized issue is managed within the standard political system (or processes)….

An issue is securitized when it requires emergency actions beyond the state’s standard political procedures…

Securitizing process

An issue can be securitized; it can be framed as a se-curity issue and moved from the politicized to the secu-ritized end of the spectrum, through an act of securiti-zation.

A securitizing actors (usually elites in gov., military, civil society, etc.) claim that an issue constitutes an existen-tial threat to a referent objects (state, groups, individu-als) or to sovereignty, ideology, economy, etc.)

To deal with the existential nature of the threat, the securitizing actors assert that it has to adopt extraor-dinary means, means that go beyond the ordinary norms of the standard political process.

Securitization is the “move that takes politics beyond the established rule of the game…” (Buzan, Waevaer, De Wilde 1998: 23)

Non-politicized Politicized Securitized

the state doesn’t cope with the issue. the issue is not in-

cluded in public debate.

the issue is man-aged within the standard political system.

the issue is framed as a security problem through securitization.

the issue is under-stood as constituting external threat.

Speech Act

Securitizing actors use speech act to articulate a prob-lem in security terms… to articulate it as an existential threat to security…

Discursive representation of a certain issue as an ex-istential threat to security…

* Fiscal crisis can be articulated as national security cri-sis! (Read Robert Kagan’s piece)

Desecuritization

Securitizing actors reconstitute an issue as no longer an existential threat, then the issue moves from the securitized realm into the ordinary public arena.

Desecuritization is the reverse process of securitiza-tion. It shifts the issue from emergency mode into the normal political sphere…

Some thoughts on securitization

Security is a socially constructed concept! It is a shared understanding of what constitutes a threat to a society…

What constitutes security to a given society depends on intersubjective understanding between securitizing actors and referent objects (it has to be accepted by referent objects!!!) as to what constitutes existential security threats!

It’s not predetermined!!! It cannot be imposed!!!

Security threats do not exist independently from the discourse

Security shouldn’t be idealized…

Securitization process can be abused by securitizing actors… in the name of providing security!

It does seem to provide a coherent logic as to what constitutes security… how one issue becomes a se-curity issue…