(2003) Individual and Societal Dimensions of Security

Monções: Revista de Relações Internacionais da UFGD, Dourados, v.2. n.3, jul./dez., 2013, pp.12-45, 2014

The paper approaches the “vertical expansion of the concept of security” reconstructing the debate on the concept of security within the discipline of International Relations after the Cold War. Considering that security is an “essentially contested concept”, it offers a handful of comparisons between different conceptions, which provide different accounts of “broadening” security. Barry Buzan’s Securitization approach was the first to engage seriously the challenges of “broadening” security in IR. For its merits, however, Buzan’s communitarian ontology poses a problem to “broadening” security, as it reiterates the state as the gatekeeper of protection and as the authoritative site for defining existential threats. In this sense, in spite of all its overriding ambiguity, Human Security provides a better alternative for the “vertical expansion of the concept of security” than securitization. The paper, therefore, considers the respective contributions of securitization and human security to the debate on the vertical expansion of security under the light of the relationship between states and human beings.

International Studies Perspectives, 2001

This article explores the concept of "human security" as an academic and fledgling policy movement that seeks to place the individual-or people collectively-as the referent of security. It does this against a background of evolving transnational norms relating to security and governance, and the development of scientific understanding that challenges orthodox conceptions of security. It suggests that human security is not a coherent or objective school of thought. Rather, there are different, and sometimes competing, conceptions of human security that may reflect different sociological0cultural and geostrategic orientations. The article argues that the emergence of the concept of human security-as a broad, multifaceted, and evolving conception of securityreflects the impact of values and norms on international relations. It also embraces a range of alliances, actors, and agendas that have taken us beyond the traditional scope of international politics and diplomacy. As a demonstration of change in international relations, of evolving identities and interests, this is best explained with reference to "social constructivist" thought, in contradistinction with the structural realist mainstream of international relations. In a constructivist vein, the article suggests that empirical research is already building a case in support of human security thinking that is, slowly, being acknowledged by decisionmakers, against the logic of realist determinism.

2021

Safety is the fundamental value in the system of the needs of individuals, states, groups, and social systems. With reference to an existential dimension of a given subject’s being, it means the certainty of its survival and existence. It can be considered both as a factor determining the state of a subject at a specified time or over a longer period of time (the processual dimension) and, in the latter, it refers to the durability of the subject’s existence as well as its ability to survive and develop in a determined, subject-specific external environment. Safety as a category that describes the state of a subject means not only the lack of threats to its existence and functioning, but also assumes that there is a possibility that available measures exist for the subject to ensure the persistence of such a state, alternatively conducive to its change in a positive direction.

International Studies Review, 2003

Despite the prevalence of state-based approaches to security studies during the Cold War, alternative ways of thinking about securityF focusing on the individual and societyFalso developed during this time period. However, in the post-Cold War era the primacy of the state in considerations of security has come under increasing challenge from a variety of perspectives. In this essay, the development of the study of individual and societal dimensions of security is traced and discussed against the background of the end of the Cold War. The first part of the essay examines the evolution of thinking about individual and societal dimensions of security during the Cold War. The second part focuses on the post-Cold War revival in thinking about these aspects of security. The essay concludes by considering the future of world politics conceived of as a ''risk society'' and the implications for individual and societal dimensions of security.

Post-Cold War years has witnessed many shifts, breaks and rupture in theorizing about the state, security, and state responsibilities. Previously state was considered to be a totality; the home of a nation with the prime national objective of providing security from threats coming from outside international anarchy and economic development. As Cold War descended into history, so were the discursive formations associated with that particular episteme and in a new era the established concepts related to state and its responsibilities i.e. security and development are contested. On one side liberal Metanarrative is telling the tale of State as a concept of bygone years, and insisting on rolling back state roles; while the other side of stereo is lamenting on postcolonial state's weakness and failure to deliver promised social contract to their populace. Hence the State fragility is considered to be a threat for the peaceful working of neoliberal world order. The paper aims to deconstruct Cold War discursivities about security and development; cast a gaze on emergent shifts in security development literature with a shift in referent of security from state to individual; as well as the perceived role of state with paradigm shift to human security and human development, at the same time finding what caused the state failure. Though, the Rafida Nawaz, Lubna Kanwal & Syed Hussain Murtaza 24

Essays in Security in the New Millennium, 2001

The concept of security has evolved from a narrow focus on military-strategic security centred on the state to a broad and multidimensional understanding of "human security." The latter encompasses basic economic needs, environmental equilibrium, cultural identity and political liberty. Within the discipline of security studies and its variants, there has been much debate on the issue, with some scholars calling for continuity and others pushing for a fundamental rethinking of the scope of the discipline. 1 Here, I take the wider conception as appropriate for the simple reason that it follows from the fundamental question: security for whom? The answer, clearly, is "people" rather than the state, to which the traditional conception of security attaches. From the standpoint of ordinary people, the state is, properly speaking, no more than an instrument, albeit a vital one, for the achievement of security. And people's security must necessarily encompass a range of physical and social needs that are best captured by the conception of "human security." This conception is best described in the words of former Canadian external affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy:

Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 2017

Generally speaking, the traditional approach of security mainly regards states as a sole referent object of security and refutes any attempt to broaden the concept of security. This understanding is known as a realist approach. This approach, however, has been recently challenged by the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. The Copenhagen School assumes that there is now a duality of security: state security and societal security. However, both the Welsh School and the human security school look at individuals as a sole referent object of security. This article critically reviews the traditional approaches of security, the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, and the human security approach. This article finally argues that the Copenhagen School could successfully broaden the concept of security, and therefore, it is more convincing when compared to other schools.

Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, 2007

Security has traditionally been related more to states than to people or planet Earth. Since the seventeenth century, when the current system of states began to emerge, security has been most commonly understood and practiced with reference to the needs and interests of states. Often, the state itself came to be treated as the subject of security rather than the means of providing security for its inhabitants. In the post-World War II era, the focus on the well-being of states was reflected in the dominance of approaches seeking “national security.” Notwithstanding alternative understandings and practices of security that have always existed, it was this state-focused and externally-directed approach that prevailed throughout the Cold War era. Although alternative thinking that pointed to the individual, societal, and global dimensions of security began to develop during the Cold War it did not flourish until after it ended. Especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the global dimension of security has also gained prominence. It remains rare, however, for the planet to be treated as the subject of security in its own right. Instead, it is more common for prevailing approaches to portray the global dimension of security as a context within which threats to “national security” emerge.

I will argue that since the end of the Cold War, just like during the cold war, security is about defining politics, and Nazarbayev, who’s address to the world was a political gesture in a political publication, and brings back some of the security concepts of the Cold War as well as newer concerns which have risen since its end, thereby successfully integrating himself into the system of International Relations. I will try to demonstrate how president Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been in power since before the USSR collapse, is using traditional concepts of security in a new political reality.