Security Studies - Essay Example

Security Studies Essay Table of Contents Introduction 3 Philosophies of Human Security in Democracy 4 Contradictions of Sovereignty Principles to Human Security 7 Discussion 9 Conclusion 12 References 14 Introduction Prior to determining whether the notions and the subsequent legislative implications of human security and state sovereignty are conflicting, both the ideas of human security and state sovereignty require to be elaborated succinctly. In general, the idea of human security refers to the utilisation of forces by states towards managing the threats that disrupt their respective autonomy, territorial integrity and domestic political order. It would be vital to mention that human security concerns mostly providing significant benefits to the individuals or the people rather than the states along with the nations. The perception of human security prioritises the protection of certain primary human values that encompass national liberation and territorial integrity (Bajpai, 2000). On the other hand, the idea of state sovereignty is regarded as one of the core constituents of the United Nations (UN) system along with that of the world politics. It is worth mentioning that state sovereignty plays a decisive role in shaping every individual facet of international politics, with due significance to supporting free trade, adhering to legal along with moral standards and encouraging liberalisation among others. It is quite evident that state sovereignty is somewhat different from human security. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the former works upon the interests of dependent as well as independent states and the later emphasises safeguarding the interests of the individuals or the people. It is evident that human security and state sovereignty accepts and follow international laws in order to serve the interests of the individuals and the states respectively. Beyond this similarity, the differences between the above discussed two aspects i.e. human security and state sovereignty can be noted based upon their interactions, rights along with principles and consequences (Giannini, 2010). With this concern, the essay intends to discuss about whether human security and state sovereignty are irreconcilable with prime focus on analysing certain vital aspects. These aspects would comprise philosophies of human security in democracy and contradictions of state sovereignty principles to human security. Philosophies of Human Security in Democracy The diverse philosophies of human security in democracy have embraced the concern of safeguarding the interests of the individuals or the people rather than the states. In this similar context, one of the inherent philosophies of human security in democracy is identified to be a normative as well as an ethical movement, which rests upon self-interested incidence of empirical reasoning. The philosophy recognises human security to be normative by arguing that there exists a moral accountability towards reorienting security around the people or the individuals in a distributive sense, in the circumstance of transformations in political community and the appearance of transnational norms associated with human rights. On the other hand, the philosophy identifies human security to rest upon empirical reasoning based upon the ground that there exists direct impact of certain significant aspects upon stability along with peace within and between various states. These aspects comprise deprivation of human security such as in the form of socio-economic deprivation along with exclusion, extreme level of abuses relating to human rights and extensive epidemiological threats like Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Newman, 2001). The other basic philosophy of human security in democracy denotes its implications for the acts that are often conducted towards forming effective international peace-building programmes. This particular philosophy reveals that the approach of human security towards peace building would eventually strive in enhancing the material as well as the physical security of the individuals and the communities, in terms of employment creation, poverty mitigation and deliverance of quality public services. Thus, it can be affirmed in this similar concern that with the help of these measures, human security will be able to serve the cause of stability and peace. In relation to peace building, the philosophy of human security focuses upon addressing the fundamental conflict sources, rather than merely emphasising the occurrence (Newman, 2011). With regards to determine the philosophies of human security in democracy, it can be affirmed that the insight of human security tends to identify the basic reasons of having conflicts based on the grounds of political as well as social exclusion, structural violence or horizontal inequalities, spoiler activities and power politics. In accordance with the inherent principles of democracy, the approach of human security realises the essentiality of meeting certain welfare goals for offering greater stability and security to the individuals or the people. In this similar concern, the welfare goals mainly comprise boosting job security within the economy, poverty alleviation, facilitating employment, leveraged competencies to satisfy immediate basic requirements, encouraging quality services and addressing any sort of grievance among others (Newman, 2011). Specially mentioning, one of the prime philosophies of human security in democracy is apparently observed as the viewpoint of this particular approach, which focuses upon determining human rights and their deprivation. In addition, the humanitarian philosophy of human security tends to find out the conceptions like globalisation forces, state of global economy and environmental health factors including oceans and world’s atmosphere as elements affecting the security as well as the stability of the individuals within the nation at large (Williams, 2008). Apart from the above-discussed philosophies, the qualitative aspect relating to human security is the other major philosophy of human security in democracy. This particular philosophy provides a brief and a clear idea about the attainment of human dignity, which integrates the factors like control over one’s individual life, personal autonomy and unhindered participation in community life. This philosophy implies that the approach of human security is much orientated towards a dynamic and a functional idea of democracy, which ensures the prospect for all individuals to take part in decision-making procedure, affecting their day-to-day lives by a considerable extent (Thomas, 2001). One of the decisive philosophies of human security in democracy reveals that the issues concerning state sovereignty and interference not only affect the rights of the respective states, but also make the human beings seek for greater assistance as well as protection in their socio-economic life. Arguably, this can be justified with reference to the fact that the approach of state sovereignty often fails in protecting the respective state members from certain enduring insecurities that comprise unemployment, scarce shelter, environmental hazard and social conflict among others (ICISS, 2001). Various scholars relating to the arena of human security argue that the greatest challenges or threats linked with safety experienced by the individuals or the people in this modern world generally emerge from the conduct of internal conflicts and may be owing to other reasons as well, such as environmental contamination and hunger. In this similar context, the approach of human security tends to comply with the needs of human welfare by eradicating the aforementioned threats through developing the thinking abilities of human security (Newman, 2010). Contradictions of State Sovereignty Principles to Human Security After acquiring a brief idea about the notions of human security and state sovereignty, it can be observed that the refurbishment of sovereignty opposes the claims made by human security on certain grounds. One of these grounds can be identified as the philosophy of human security to be based upon empowering and emancipatory outline that provides sovereignty to the individuals and challenges the present power frameworks. Arguably, it is often criticised that the approach and the principles of state sovereignty contradict the philosophies of human security implying that an increase of human security approach may tend to undermine the idea of state sovereignty by a certain degree. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the increased level of concern of human security approach towards protecting the individuals of the community members and offering them with better stability takes precedent over state sovereignty, which in turn, led towards the undermining of the approach of state sovereignty (McCormack, 2008). From this contradiction, it can be clearly understood that the approaches of human security and state sovereignty are irreconcilable by a considerable extent. Based on the above discussion, the undermining of state sovereignty approach eventually facilitated the international community, which is also acknowledged as great powers, to interfere in political, financial and military affairs within nation contexts. This resulted in the ultimate led to the victimisation of the poor as well as the least developed countries that lack in utilising available resources from augmenting violations on their respective sovereignty (Silva, n.d.). The principles of state sovereignty also contradict one of the prominent philosophies of human security concerning the role of the citizens in supporting these approaches. It can be apparently observed in this similar concern that traditionally, the approach of state sovereignty rests upon state independence, appreciation of other states and territorial control of the respective governments. The citizens’ role is observed to support this particular system for the purpose of reaping certain significant benefits such as fulfilling individual rights. In contradiction, according to the approach of human security, the notion of state sovereignty must support and serve the individuals or the people from which it draws its lawfulness rather than resting upon the above discussed aspects (Newman, 2010). This also signifies that “human security” and “state sovereignty” lays in irreconcilable mode. While analysing the contradictions of state sovereignty principles to the approach of human security, it was apparent in ancient times that, states or political communities used to possess a sovereign authority possessing recognised power as the foundation of authority within its respective territory. This was mainly to maintain a domestic order, which is believed to remain one of the prerequisites for seeking justice at that particular time. Thus, with this concern, the principle of state sovereignty relating to the maintenance of domestic order, contradicted to the approach of human security, based on the ground of determining human rights and their deprivation. According to the principle of state sovereignty, the rights of the community members belonging to any state can be determined by preserving domestic order and through seeking justice rather than forming effective international peace-building programmes undertaken in abidance with the approach of human security. The other imperative principle of state sovereignty in relation to the developmental attributes to international relations, also contradict the viewpoints of human security regarding the similar aspect. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the approach of state sovereignty develops international relations by “ordering global politics within the modern state rather than being a timeless attribute of it” instead of recognising the reasons of having conflicts based on numerous factors, as linked with the approach of human security (Maria & Rocha, 2013: 189). The factors are often based on the grounds of power politics, political as well as social exclusion, spoiler activities and structural violence or horizontal inequalities. It is worth mentioning that the major claim of state sovereignty, which eventually contradicts with the viewpoints of human security approach, force political states to decide on their own about how to address and mitigate their respective internal along with external problems, challenges or risks. In this regard, the viewpoints of human security approach were found to be differing to that of state sovereignty approach. According to the standpoints of human security approach, certain lawful rights would be provided to the individuals that would ensure protecting their own self-interests rather than deciding of their own regarding the same (Maria & Rocha, 2013). Thus, it can be affirmed that the approaches of human security and state sovereignty are dependent and self-governing in nature respectively, working towards the attainment of their respective predetermined targets. This ultimately results in making the two approaches of human security and state sovereignty irreconcilable by a certain extent. Discussion From the above analysis, the approaches of human security and state sovereignty can be observed as quite dissimilar, raising contradictions to their viewpoints. It would be vital to mention that the contradictions of both the approaches can be determined based upon the ground of their thinking about enhancing international security. In this similar context, the approach of human security encourages the scholars and the policy makers to visualise international security as something in excess of the military defence of state interests and territory (Paris, 2001). On the other hand, as per the standpoint of state sovereignty approach, it inspires the scholars and the policy makers to visualise international security as one of the central vehicles of oppression and major barriers towards change in the contemporary business world. Arguably, the approach of human security is often viewed as individual security and state sovereignty approach to be national security (Sorensen, 1996). According to the viewpoints of Sorensen (1996), the driving forces of both the approaches, i.e. human security and state sovereignty results in contradicting themselves while serving the best interests of the individuals or the people along with the states and developing international relations. In this regard, Sorensen (1996) noted the driving forces of human security to be a depiction of extreme level of financial interdependence, increased level of technological changes and gaining momentum of financial flows including international lending and direct foreign investment. On the other hand, Sorensen (1996) identified the major driving forces of state sovereignty to be increased level of international trade, growth of industrialisation and greater requirement for international cooperation. According to various scholars, decision-makers and authorities liable for making effective policies, the contradictions of state sovereignty principles to human security methodology lies in their respective thinking towards the development of the most significant peacekeeping approaches. This particular approach is regarded as one of the strategic activities towards preserving international peace along with security throughout the globe. In this similar context, the approach of human security determines the roles play by world powers and international community in the advancement of peacekeeping approach. On the contrary, state sovereignty approach noted the behaviours of international community as one of the determinant factors in the success of a specific peacekeeping operation. These aspects eventually contradict the viewpoints of both the methodologies in relation to the formation and the attainment of success of peacekeeping operations (Suhrke, 1999). While discussing about the contradictions of human security and state sovereignty, it can be apparently observed that the endeavour of making the approach of human security agreeable towards the state policymakers is quite problematic due to certain reasons. These reasons comprise viewing states to raise numerous problems rather than as sources of solutions, applying ineffective strategies towards responding human security related threats and limited application of the term ‘transnational’ (Bellamy & McDonald, 2002). It is worth mentioning that the implications of the transforming security landscape have resulted in focusing less upon safeguarding the states and more upon individual citizens belonging to diverse states and communities. This certainly promotes the approach of human security as compared to state sovereignty, making the former one to be quite relevant and contradict with the later one. Specially mentioning, the specific demands of both the approaches, i.e. human security and state sovereignty also make them contradict with each other. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the approach of human security demands a multidimensional recognition of manifold interaction levels toward safeguarding the interests of the individuals. Whereas, the approach of state sovereignty demands lessening the interdependence along with the interaction level in order to serve the best interests of the states (Liotta, 2002). According to Thomas & Tow (2002), one of the prime contradictory aspects of state sovereignty principles to human security lay in the approach of comprehending modern security politics. Justifiably, the approach of human security describes modern security politics as the central vehicle of addressing and mitigating problems of human security relating to immediacy and vulnerability. In this regard, the approach of state sovereignty contradicts by describing modern security politics as the power sharing aspect between state and non-state actors in this globalising world. It has been evident that pollution, genocide, refugees and cross-border terrorism are clear instances of threats that undermine international security along with peace by a greater level, which are often viewed to be based on the philosophies of human security in contradiction to state sovereignty (Macfarlane, 2004). In this regard, the notion of human security focuses upon developing peacekeeping approach based on both human and traditional security grounds. Observably, the approach of state sovereignty contradicts in this regard with that of human security approach, revealing that the above discussed threats i.e. cross-border terrorism, refugees, pollution and genocide among others not only affect human security but also impose unfavourable impacts upon the events within a particular state. The events might comprise gender discrimination, food distribution and basic shelter among others (Thomas & Tow, 2002). As per the viewpoints of Owen (2004), the approach of human security signifies something in excess of safety from various sorts of violent threats. In this similar concern, the approach of state sovereignty contradicts concluding that the approach of human security still requires re-evaluating the understanding and the sovereignty norms for addressing as well as coping up with every sort of violent threat (Thakur, 2004). This viewpoint of state sovereignty approach implies that human security cannot be regarded as something, which acts beyond providing safety to the individuals from violent threats (Owen, 2004). Conclusion As per the above analysis and discussion, it can be affirmed that the approaches of human security and state sovereignty are quite different. This might be owing to the reason of having broader contradictions of state sovereignty principles to human security approach based on various grounds. Identifiably, the principles and the philosophies of state sovereignty contradicts the approach of human security wherein it is argued that state needs to practice a certain degree of control on the decisions and the legitimacy of human behaviour and hence, undermine the significance of individual security to a certain extent. It would be vital to mention that the concern of human security approach towards safeguarding the individuals of diverse states from violent threats took precedent over the approach of state sovereignty, which eventually resulted in undermining the principles related to the approach by a considerable extent. As was mentioned, the focus of the both the approaches of human security and state sovereignty, is quite different. Their principles are also observed to differ from one other largely. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the approach of human security emphasises protecting the individuals, whereas, the approach of state sovereignty concerns about serving the best interests of the state on the whole. Thus, by taking into concern the disparities prevailing in the approaches and the contradictions, it can be concluded that human security and state sovereignty are irreconcilable by a certain extent. References Bajpai, K., 2000. Introduction. Human Security: Concept and Measurement, pp. 1-64. Bellamy, A. & McDonald, M., 2002. ‘The Utility of Human Security’: Which Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas & Tow. SAGE Publications, Vol. 33, Iss. 3, pp. 373-377. Giannini, R., 2010. Introduction. The Rule of Law: State Sovereignty vs. International Obligations, pp. 1-7. ICISS, 2001. Policy Challenge. The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 1-87. Liotta, P. H. Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security. Sage Publications, Vol. 33, Iss. 4, pp. 473-488. McCormack, T., 2008. Power and Agency in the Human Security Framework. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 113-128. Maria, R. & Rocha, A., 2013. Does Sovereignty Remain As the Foundational Principle Of The International System? Lawinter Review, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 185-199. Macfarlane, S. N., 2004. A Useful Concept that Risks Losing Its Political Salience. Security Dialogue, pp. 368-369. Newman, E., 2001. Human Security and Constructivism. International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 2, pp. 239-251. Newman, E., 2011. A Human Security Peace-Building Agenda. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 1737-1756. Newman, E., 2010. Critical Human Security Studies. Review of International Studies, Vol. 36, Iss. 01, pp. 77-94. Owen, T., 2004. Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition. Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 373-387. Paris, R., 2001. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 87-102. Silva, G. A., No Date. Introduction. Human Security and Sovereignty: Polar Opposites or Simply Nodes in a Network? pp. 1-42. Sorensen, G., 1996. Individual Security and National Security. Security Dialogue, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, pp. 371-386. Suhrke, A., 1999. Human Security and the Interests of States. SAGE Publications, Vol. 30, Iss. 3, pp. 265-276. Thomas, C., 2001. Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the Links. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 159–175. Thakur, R., 2004. A Political Worldview. Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 347-348. Thomas, N. & Tow, W. T., 2002. The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention. SAGE Publications, Vol. 33, Iss. 2, pp. 177-192. Williams, P. D., 2008. Transnational Organized Crime. Security Studies: An Introduction, pp. 453-466. Read More