© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD).
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
HUMAN SECURITY: RECONCILING CRITICAL ASPIRATIONS
WITH POLITICAL ‘REALITIES’
Edward Newman*
This article explores the concept of ‘human security’: the idea that the referent object and beneficiary
of security should be individuals. It demonstrates that the concept has had some success as
a normative reference point for human-centred policy movements internationally, and it reflects
a broader shift towards human agency and human-centred conceptions of security. As a theoretical
concept, therefore, the idea contributes to a multi-disciplinary reconceptualization of security
that draws upon theoretical debates in political science and criminology. However, attempts to
operationalize it have exposed fundamental problems in the new security discourse more broadly,
generating critiques in political science and criminology which share common foundations but
which are rarely engaged in an integrated manner. This article explores whether critical or radical
security ideas like human security can be reconciled with political ‘realities’ or whether this
undermines their intellectual integrity. In addressing this debate from an international relations
perspective, the article also engages with criminological scholarship on security in order to identify
and strengthen links across the disciplines.
Keywords: human security, critical security studies, United Nations, everyday security
Introduction
The study of security—across a range of disciplines—is now defined and problematized
by questions of scope, subject matter and coherence. What should the referent object of
security be? What threats should define the study and the policies of security? Which
actors should be entrusted to respond to security threats? At what cost—in terms of
personal liberty and limits to consumption—should security be achieved? How should
security be studied and what forms the basis of reliable knowledge in this area? It can
be no surprise that security has been described as an ‘essentially contested’ subject,
defying consensus on its basic parameters and perhaps even its meaning (Buzan and
Hansen 2009: 10). These questions are raised and addressed in criminology, political
science, sociology and international relations, amongst others, but generally without
much engagement across the disciplines.
The concept of ‘human security’ has made a significant contribution to debates
around these questions and, thus, to the evolving study and practices of security. At its
core is the idea that the referent object and beneficiary of security should be individuals,
a normative proposition that challenges conventional assumptions about security
in a number of ways. Human security securitizes everyday issues and challenges, such
as deprivation, environmental degradation, disease and human rights abuse. It blurs
the distinction between domestic and international security. It is also inherently transdisciplinary
since it sees any threat to the vital integrity of individuals as a security
*Edward Newman, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;
e.newman@leeds.ac.uk.
doi:10.1093/bjc/azw016	 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL.  (2016) 56, 1165–1183
Advance Access publication 17 February 2016
1165
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
challenge, whatever the source. The study of human security is a part of a broader movement
within a number of academic fields which critiques how and why some issues are
defined as ‘security challenges’, the consequences of this ‘securitization’, the tension
between the governance of security and other public goods and the societal context of
(in)security. The evolution of the human security concept and the debates that have
defined this evolution therefore provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the
common—but generally underexplored—interests shared across disciplinary boundaries,
and, in particular, international relations and criminology.
The concept of human security has had some success as a normative reference point
for human-centred policy movements—such as the campaign to reduce the impact of
armed conflict upon civilians—and a number of states and inter-governmental organizations
have adopted human security as a policy orientation. It has also been embraced
by many civil society actors. To some degree, human security reflects a broader shift
towards human agency and human-centred conceptions of security seen in academic
and policy debates. As a theoretical concept, therefore, human security contributes to
a broad multi-disciplinary reconceptualization of security.
However, the conceptual traction of human security has been limited, and attempts
to operationalize it have exposed fundamental problems in the new security discourse
more broadly which are at the heart of debates in criminology and political science.
Whilst some criminology scholars have engaged with human security (Mythen and
Walklate 2006a; Wood and Shearing 2007: 63–96; Zedner 2009: 39–44), scholars in politics
and international studies have yet to take up the trans-disciplinary themes, despite
this shared agenda. Most importantly, there is a fundamental paradox at the heart of
human security in terms of its policy operationalization that is relevant to criminology
and political science. Human security, taken to its logical conclusion, holds ‘critical’
implications for the way politics and economics are organized: it challenges the values
and institutions which currently exist as they relate to human welfare, and it focuses
upon underlying sources of insecurity. Yet the ontological starting point of most human
security analysis and its policy orientation assume the inevitability and legitimacy of
these institutions. Over the last 20 years, human security has become quite enfeebled
in its policy application, and it arguably no longer poses difficult questions for the
holders of power. In policy circles, human security is generally used to ameliorate the
manifestations and symptoms of insecurity and deprivation. It is not used as a device to
expose and address the structural conditions and the institutions that give rise to this
insecurity. That is, human security is promoted and operationalized within the existing
political, legal and normative constraints of the ‘real world’. For many academic observers,
this has undermined whatever credibility the concept of human security ever had;
it has therefore ‘lost its way’ (Turner et al. 2011) or even ‘collapsed’ (Richmond 2011:
43) as an intellectual project. As a result, critical security studies—particularly those
approaches which are influenced by the Foucauldian tradition—have become increasingly
hostile to human security, whilst the gap between ‘critical’ security studies and
policy-oriented human security has become wider than ever.
Human security represents a way of engaging with policy and security processes that
many other forms of security analysis—dissociated from practical political engagement—often
eschew. Human security therefore provides a framework for praxis for
security research which merits reinvestment—yet this must be done in a way that captures
the critical origins of the concept, and that is the key challenge. This raises a
NEWMAN
1166
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
number of difficult questions that will be explored in this paper in a manner that draws
together both international studies and criminology. Can ‘progressive’ ideas change
the institutions and structures of power that generate insecurity? Alternatively, can
human security policy interventions have a meaningful and positive impact upon individual
lives without changing the structural sources of deprivation? If a policy-oriented
‘problem-solving’ approach is necessary to achieve policy engagement in the interests
of ‘progressive’ security practices, does this remove the transformational potential of
non-traditional security ideas? Can critical or radical aspirations be reconciled with
political ‘realities’ or does this undermine human security as an intellectual project?
In presenting security as a positive value and reinforcing the securitization of everyday
life, does human security in turn reinforce hegemonic and interventionist security
agendas?
This paper explores human security policy initiatives in a number of settings in order
to consider if human security can ever be truly ‘critical’ whilst also being policy relevant.
In addressing this debate from an international relations perspective, the article
also engages with criminological scholarship on security in order to identify and
strengthen links across the disciplines. Drawing upon the theoretical contributions
to security studies made by criminology—in particular, the debate around security
governance (Johnston and Shearing 2003; Wood and Shearing 2007)—the paper will
take up the critique of human security as a form of international security governance.
The paper argues that human security can be rescued from its predicament if scholars
engage with the concept critically, as an approach that can meaningfully engage with
and have an impact upon policy. This will be relevant not only to those interested in
international development and politics but also scholars from a range of disciplines—
in particular, criminology—interested in security and praxis. In this sense, human
security has the potential for truly trans-disciplinary engagement around the concept
and practice of security—even amongst scholars who are wary of that practice.
Human Security: From International Relations to Criminology
Zedner (2009: 4) observes that human security ‘brings about a convergence between
international relations and criminology’, but the implications of this have not been
fully explored. Human security can be situated within three broad and overlapping
movements that have evolved in recent decades and have made an impact in particular
upon political science and international studies, but also more recently upon criminology.
Firstly, the international security agenda has widened beyond the military sector,
to include a range of economic, social and environmental challenges (Buzan et al.
1998). Secondly, in academic security studies, there has been a shift away from the
state as the object of security, in a process of deepening which has embraced other
referents and values. Thirdly, and relatedly, there has arguably been a shift from statecentric
to human-focussed security thinking, although the extent of this is contested.
Within this evolving context, the concept of human security centres the principle that
security policy and security analysis, if they are to be effective and legitimate, must
focus on the individual—and communities—as the referent and primary beneficiary.
Human security is thus normative; it suggests that there is an ethical responsibility to
re-orient security around the individual in line with internationally recognized human
rights. Much human security scholarship is therefore underpinned by a cosmopolitan
HUMAN SECURITY
1167
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
worldview. Some human security scholarship also seeks to present explanatory arguments
concerning the nature of security, deprivation and conflict, by focussing on the
individual level. In addition, most scholars and practitioners working on human security
emphasize its policy relevance; they believe that the concept of human security can
and should result in policy changes that improve the welfare of people.
Whilst human security has been taken up most actively within international studies,
the broader debates around the concept are very much relevant to criminological discussions
of security, and these discussions make a valuable contribution to human security
debates. The focus on humans is a part of a movement in criminology to critically
question how security is defined and operationalized in society, and in whose interests.
Criminologists thus explore the pervasive scope of security in contemporary society
and how this conditions the nature of governance, the relationship between the state
and individuals, the provision of security by commercial actors rather than as a public
good and the tension between individual liberty and public security (De Lint and Virta
2004; Mariana 2011; Wood and Dupont 2006; Zedner 2009). Some criminologists have
also engaged in critical debates about the dynamics of securitization (Loader 2002;
Aradau and Van Munster 2009; McClanahan and Brisman 2015) and the implications
of the ‘war on terror’ for how Western societies understand security and insecurity in
the public and private spheres (Mythen and Walklate 2008; Zedner 2009).
In contrast to much of the scholarship on security within international relations,
these criminological debates give particular attention to how security is defined and
administered within liberal societies at the ‘everyday’ level (Goold et al. 2013; Crawford
and Hutchinson 2015). This explores the interests that are served by the practice of
security, the social costs of security, the governance of security and the agencies—such
as the police—which play a role in upholding and enforcing public security. Whilst
the liberal state is theoretically oriented around individual needs and rights—albeit
moderated by a social contract which balances these rights against public goods—
criminologists have exposed the manner in which the governance of security does not
necessarily serve human security (Johnston and Shearing 2003) and all too often acts
as a vehicle for social control. In this way, criminology demonstrates how human security
is not only relevant to deprived and conflict-affected populations in the developing
world—the primary focus of human security from an international relations perspective—but
also Western democratic societies. A further area that criminological security
studies has pioneered that has huge implications for human security—but which has
not been substantively explored by human security scholars elsewhere—relates to the
privatization of security and the provision of security as a commodity, rather than as a
public good for all (Shearing and Stenning 1983; Loader 1997; Los 2002; Zedner 2006;
Goold et al. 2010).
The human security idea reconceptualizes security—at least in theory—in a number
of crucial ways. As a starting point, it challenges traditional conceptions of international
security that focus upon the state and the problem of international anarchy. Scholars
of human security argue that for many—or perhaps most—people in the world, the
greatest threats to security come from hunger, disease, environmental degradation,
internal conflicts or criminal violence. And for others, a greater threat may come from
their own government, rather than from an ‘external’ enemy. This is very much in line
with security debates in criminology which raise questions about the state as a ‘partisan’
actor (Loader and Walker 2006: 172–3) and the deprivation which results from
NEWMAN
1168
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
this in line with class, race and gender. From this perspective, security is an exclusive
commodity rather than a public good (Crawford 2006b). Human security thus seeks to
challenge attitudes and institutions that privilege so-called ‘high politics’ above individual
(everyday) experiences of deprivation and insecurity. According to this, traditional
approaches to international security—defined by states, territorial integrity and
defence against external threats—do not necessarily correlate with human security,
and an over-emphasis upon state security can be to the detriment of human welfare.
Further, the citizens of states that are deemed ‘secure’ according to the traditional
concept of security can at the same time be perilously insecure in their everyday lives.
From a criminological perspective, this invokes debates not only about the obvious
insecurity of people in deprived and conflict-affected societies, but also the insecurity
of some communities in so-called developed, Western societies, which are disadvantaged
and often victimized disproportionately based upon demographic vulnerabilities
(something almost completely neglected by scholars of human security writing from an
international relations background).
Human security, in theory, also raises important implications for the evolution of
state sovereignty. Traditionally, state sovereignty and sovereign legitimacy are viewed—
at least in International Relations—as an extension of a government’s control of territory,
state independence and recognition by other states. Citizens do not play a direct
role in this equation. The concept of human security challenges this so that the state—
and state sovereignty—should ideally serve and support the people from which it draws
its legitimacy. The international legitimacy of state sovereignty should therefore rest
not only on the control of territory, but also upon fulfilling certain standards of human
rights and welfare for citizens.
A further characteristic of the human security approach is that it seeks to securitize
issues as it deepens the security agenda, and from this perspective, securitization is
generally a positive process in that it seeks to raise the urgency of neglected challenges
and bring about new forms of protection for people and groups. An extremely wide
range of issues—including poverty and malnutrition, disease, environmental degradation
and climate change—are thus securitized. The objective is to encourage security
providers—and specifically state agencies—to invest the attention and resources necessary
to address these non-traditional security challenges. Clearly some scholars are
wary of this sort of securitization. It moves challenges from the realm of normal politics
to the realm of exceptional or emergency politics, ‘justifying actions outside the normal
bounds of political procedure’ which can have implications for civil liberties, displace
other public goods and bring other pernicious consequences (Buzan et al. 1998:
23–4). Securitization can therefore represent a failure of normal politics. Yet, as Floyd
(2011) has observed, sometimes it is morally permissible to suspend normal politics if
this allows security providers to effectively and responsibly address egregious deprivation.
The objective, therefore, should be a ‘robust conception of the human good of
security’ (Loader and Walker 2006: 166) which holds the potential excesses of security
to account in a democratic society.
While all approaches to human security agree that the referent of security policy
and analysis should be the individual, they disagree about which threats the individual
should be protected from, and what means should be employed to achieve this protection.
There have been a number of strands—or usages—of human security scholarship
and policy analysis (Newman 2001; 2010). Human security has been used as an
HUMAN SECURITY
1169
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
umbrella concept for approaching a range of ‘non-traditional’ security issues—such as
HIV/AIDS, inhumane weapons such as anti-personnel landmines, child soldiers and
trafficking in human beings—with the simple objective of attracting greater policy
attention and resources for tackling them. The focus on crime and victimization as a
human security focus—e.g. in connection with human trafficking and forced labour—
offers an interesting although undeveloped connection between international relations
and criminology. Human security has also been used to focus on the human consequences
of armed conflict and the dangers posed to civilians by repressive governments
and situations of state failure (Mack 2004; MacFarlane and Khong 2006). From this
perspective, conventional security analysis is inadequate for explaining—much less for
remedying—the realities of armed conflict and its impact at the human level.
In contrast, a broader usage of the human security concept considers all threats to
human welfare but has a particular focus upon underdevelopment, poverty and deprivation.
The 1994 UN Development Programme Human Development Report (HDR) is
representative of this approach: here, human security means ‘safety from such chronic
threats as hunger, disease and repression’ and ‘protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’
(United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] 1994: 23). This broad development-oriented
approach to human security has found support in policy circles, in
particular the Japanese sponsored Commission on Human Security (2003: 4) which
defined human security as the protection of ‘the vital core of all human lives in ways
that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment’. The broad approach to human
security sacrifices analytical precision in favour of general normative persuasion: it
focuses on the issues—such as extreme poverty, preventable disease and the consequences
of pollution—which undermine the life chances of the largest numbers of
people.
A number of scholars have also sought to understand human security from a theoretical
perspective and integrate human security into security studies (Thomas 2002;
Shani et al. 2007; Grayson 2008; Newman 2010). From this perspective, human security
is used to explore theoretical debates concerning the nature of security threats, referents
and responses to insecurity. Within this approach, an important focus is upon the
gendered aspects of security and insecurity (Truong et al. 2007; Roberts 2008; Tripp
et al. 2013), with reference to gender relations and masculine institutions of power.
There is a strong link here to criminological scholarship on the gendered nature of
insecurity (Hoyle 2007). As this paper demonstrates, however, the value of human security
from a theoretical security studies perspective is hotly contested. Whether human
security can be meaningfully and legitimately operationalized in policy programmes is
therefore the test of human security as a new security concept.
Human Security as Policy
Human security has made a notable impact in international policy circles since the
1990s, although the significance of this contested. It has been promoted as a broad
normative orientation by groups of states, such as the Human Security Network and
the ‘Friends of Human Security’. The Commission on Human Security, sponsored by
the government of Japan, promoted a broad, development-focussed model of human
security which has formed the basis for UN human security activities. Human security
NEWMAN
1170
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
has also formed a loose policy framework for a number of regional organizations such
as the African Union, ASEAN and the European Union. In this sense, human security
rests upon a broader movement to give greater attention to people-centred challenges
relating, e.g., to poverty, underdevelopment, human trafficking and human rights
violations.
It remains debateable whether individual needs and rights command greater respect
more broadly in international politics in recent decades. Certainly, some observers have
suggested that interest in human security reflects a greater attention to human needs
and human welfare in international politics (see, e.g., Arbour 2008; Evans 2008; Teitel
2011). This may be illustrated by initiatives such as the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel
mines, the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development
Goals, the Rome Treaty creating the International Criminal Court, the Arms Trade
Treaty, and increased attention to the prevention of atrocities and the protection of
civilians in situations of armed conflict, including the unanimous adoption by UN
member states of the Responsibility to Protect in 2005. The adoption of the human
security concept in the same 2005 landmark UN summit meeting and the follow-up
activities on human security also reflect this momentum. However, it is difficult to evaluate
the value and impact of human security as a general normative movement in this
broad sense, and challenges have been directed at the assumption of human progress
(Pogge 2010). Human security has been operationalized in the implementation of project
assistance, in particular in relation to development programmes and post-conflict
peacebuilding and reconstruction (see below), and this may provide better evidence of
its added value.
In policy terms, human security—as a normative idea—has evolved since the 1990s
from being a fairly radical challenge to state-centric realism to a rather conservative
idea that largely runs in parallel with, but secondary to, conventional security thinking.
A comparison between the UN Development Programme work in the 1990s and
the manner in which human security is employed 20 years later illustrates this. The
following discussion will therefore sketch the evolution of human security in a number
of policy settings in order to illustrate how the concept has been deployed and the controversies
this has raised.
For a UN document, the 1994 HDR was pioneering. The HDR suggested that ‘For
most people, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from
the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Will they and their families have enough to eat?
Will they lose their jobs? Will their streets and neighbourhoods be safe from crime? Will
they be tortured by a repressive state? Will they become a victim of violence because of
their gender? Will their religion or ethnic origin target them for persecution?’ (UNDP
1994: 22). In dealing with ‘personal security’, the report lists seven types of threat, and
notably the first one reads ‘Threats from the state (physical torture)’, and also includes
‘Threats directed against women (rape, domestic violence)’ (UNDP 1994: 30).
The 1994 HDR report made a significant impact upon international policy discussions
relating to security and development, at least in a discursive sense, and a number
of countries embraced the concept. Many international organizations have internalized
the concept of human security and some have actively sought to integrate it into
their programmes. The UNDP has been a normative leader in this regard, and it has
also sought to implement human security projects at the field level in conflict-prone
and developing societies, directed at enhancing the everyday welfare of individuals and
HUMAN SECURITY
1171
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
communities. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has also actively embraced the
concept (UNHCR 1997; UNHCR 2000: 285–6; UNHCR 2006: 64–6; UNHCR 2012: 7).
Some of the UN’s work in the area of human security has been facilitated by the
United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (UNTFHS), which was established by
the UN, under Japanese sponsorship, in 1999. The objective of the fund is to finance
activities which translate the human security concept into practical action, in particular
those at the field level, to provide ‘concrete and sustainable benefits to vulnerable people
and communities threatened in their survival, livelihood and dignity’ (UNTFHS
2012). As of the beginning of 2014, the UNTFHS had funded 214 projects in over 85
countries with a total over $415 million disbursed since its foundation (UNTFHS communication
to author 2014).
With the support of the UNTFHS, many UN agencies have implemented field
programmes and activities aimed at promoting the health and welfare of communities,
and this provides further illustration of how human security has been translated
into policy. These agencies include UN Development Programme, Food and
Agricultural Programme, UN Children’s Fund, UN High commissioner for Refugees,
World Food Programme, UN Population Fund, World Health Organization, UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UN Development Fund for Women,
UN Relief and Works Agency, UN Human Settlements Programme, International
Atomic Energy Agency, UN Industrial Development Organization, UN Mine Action
Services, International Labour Organization, UN Volunteers, Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, International Organization for Migration, UN
Office on Drugs and Crime and some UN peacekeeping missions, including the UN
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (UNTFHS 2009). As
a requirement of this funding, these organizations must conceptualize their activities
with reference to human security and demonstrate how the concept brings added value.
The reports of the programmes undertaken with the use of UNTFHS resources also
provide a good indication of the sort of concrete activities undertaken in the name of
human security: programmes to improve pastoral livelihoods and food security, supporting
access to basic healthcare for vulnerable communities, increasing access to
primary education, strengthening resilience in communities which are vulnerable to
natural disasters, supporting school feeding programmes, promoting HIV/AIDS awareness
and reducing risk, increasing access to sexual and reproductive health services,
facilitating the rehabilitation of war victims, promoting girls’ education and development,
assisting rural communities in agricultural and livestock development, development
within refugee-impacted communities, managing water and energy services
for poverty eradication, assistance in micro and small-scale enterprise development
for displaced communities, programmes for reducing maternal morbidity and mortality,
programmes to promote the use of insecticide treated bed-nets and household
management of malaria by mothers, protecting and reintegrating internally displaced
persons, supporting centres which address violence against women, supporting skills
training and community service facilities for the reintegration of ex-combatants and
former rebels, supporting drug demand reduction, support for former poppy farmers,
prevention of trafficking in children and women at the community level, promoting
community reconciliation through poverty reduction in post-conflict societies, rebuilding
after natural disasters and removing the threat of cluster bombs and promoting
post-demining rehabilitation, amongst others (UNTFHS 2014). The activities carried
NEWMAN
1172
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
out through the funding of the UNTFHS have undoubtedly improved the lives of many
communities, although it is debateable whether many of the activities have benefitted
by being described as ‘human security’ since they involve activities that are undertaken
widely as a part of development or humanitarian assistance without the ‘human
security’ label.
The landmark 2005 World Summit Outcome provided a milestone for the human
security agenda in policy terms, although not one that necessarily strengthened its
impact or intellectual traction. It endorsed the concept of human security with reference
to the right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair
and free from fear and want (UN General Assembly 2005: para. 143). Following the
World Summit, the key General Assembly resolution was 66/290 of October 2012, and
this was operationalized in a report of the Secretary-General (UN Secretary-General
2013). However, this reincarnation was arguably in a form which betrayed the radical
origins of the concept. Indeed, if the 1994 vision of human security pointed to a
potential tension between human security and the state (and the conventional security
agenda), 20 years later that tension has disappeared from the UN human security
agenda. Resolution 66/290 and the UN Secretary-General’s follow-up activities have
a number of key characteristics. Firstly, they focus upon the development side of the
human security agenda, explicitly excluding the threat of direct violence and the possible
role of intervention for human protection purposes. So, according to this resolution,
‘the notion of human security is distinct from the responsibility to protect and its
implementation’, and it ‘does not entail the threat or the use of force or coercive measures’.
Secondly, this conception of human security does not acknowledge that states
may sometimes be the enemy of human security. It suggests that ‘governments retain
the primary role and responsibility for ensuring the survival, livelihood and dignity of
their citizens’ and reaffirms ‘full respect for the sovereignty of States, territorial integrity
and non-interference in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of States’. Yet it is often governments which are unable or unwilling to protect the basic
security needs of individuals and communities, and the UN’s failure to acknowledge
this, while unsurprising, exposes the fundamental weakness of the inter-governmental
approach to human security.
Thirdly, the operationalization of the human security concept has failed to explore
or deepen understanding of the underlying or structural conditions which give rise
to insecurity; the emphasis has been rather upon addressing the manifestations of
insecurity. The report claims that ‘human security initiatives promote solutions that
identify the root causes underlying current and emergent threats’ (Secretary-General:
A/68/685, para. 11). However, nothing in the UN human security discourse or in its
activities demonstrates that the root causes of insecurity and deprivation are being
explored or addressed. If they are, it is in the most superficial way—e.g. considering
poverty or unemployment as underlying sources of personal insecurity, without considering
the reasons for this poverty.
The Secretary-General’s report states that human security is underpinned by empowerment
strategies. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive solutions and suggests that
‘human security provides practitioners and policymakers with a deeper understanding
of the local context, including of the root causes of insecurities and their linkages’
(para. 65). The emphasis upon addressing insecurity at the local level and through
local ownership seems laudable, but it is also problematic. Many of the fundamental
HUMAN SECURITY
1173
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
root causes which explain extreme deprivation do not necessarily relate to local issues,
but rather to broader forces inherent in the nature of international economics and
the state system. ‘Local’ manifestations of insecurity have structural causes rooted in
international institutions. In some ways, the ‘local’ emphasis in the UN’s human security
approach obscures broader structural reasons for insecurity and deprivation, such
as the international terms of trade, international power inequalities, the arms trade,
neo-liberal globalization, the debt system, environmental degradation, the intellectual
property regime, state sovereignty, the military power of powerful states and corrupt
and abusive governance, amongst others.
So, human security has been reinvigorated at the UN, but at the same time, it has
been institutionalized within the conventional, state-centric parameters of international
society. In this sense, the UN’s human security activities and programmes, although
often well intentioned, at best address the manifestations of deprivation and insecurity,
and generally not its underlying root causes. It therefore remains doubtful whether
human security has brought forth a genuine reconceptualization of security at the UN.
Western European political establishments and civil society have also actively engaged
with the human security concept—in particular with reference to overseas development
policy, aid and peace operations—and it appears to reflect the supranational
and liberal tendencies of the region. Whilst some observers (Martin and Owen 2010)
see this as an important orientation for the EU, others (Matlary 2008) doubt whether
human security has been truly internalized into the organization and its members.
Security Studies Critiques
For a number of reasons, theoretical security studies have not been kind to human security
as it has evolved as a policy-oriented concept (Bosold 2011; Hynek and Chandler
2011). Beyond promoting a human-centred approach to security, the concept has generally
not been used to engage with the key theoretical security studies debates that
have defined the field, including securitization. Indeed, human security advocates have
often been oblivious to the potential hazards of securitizing issues such as underdevelopment,
migration and human trafficking. It has also been seen as blind to the gender
dimensions of security and insecurity (Marhia 2013). Moreover, by focussing upon
abstract individuals as the referent object, human security ignores the cultural and
societal context (Shani 2011). Whilst some scholars (Newman 2010) have attempted to
argue that a critical approach to human security policy is possible, many more security
studies scholars are quite hostile to the concept. Human security has therefore generally
been seen as insufficiently ‘critical’, and thus failing to explore the underlying reasons
for insecurity and injustice, and seeking to improve human welfare within existing
institutions rather than questioning the effectiveness or legitimacy of these institutions.
In exploring the emancipatory potential of human security, it is interesting to draw
upon Robert Cox’s (1981) famous distinction between ‘critical’ and ‘problem-solving’
social science, which has made a major impact upon security studies. The problemsolving
approach takes prevailing policy parameters and institutions as the given and
inevitable framework for action in the ‘real world’. Problem-solving analysis is regarded
as replicating and reinforcing predominant worldviews, and so, even when it seeks to
produce positive change, it endorses existing structures of power. In contrast, ‘critical’
approaches question how institutions emerge and the interests they represent and
NEWMAN
1174
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
serve, and these approaches do not accept existing policy parameters as a given or necessarily
legitimate. Critical approaches therefore challenge the structural conditions
which give rise to security and insecurity, and, according to some scholars, they have
emancipation at their core.
In its pure form, human security is in itself fundamentally ‘critical’, but this is not
how many human security arguments have been developed. Clearly, policy approaches
to addressing human security in the context of the UN and national policy establishments
would also not be described as critical in line with this definition, but rather—at
best—as problem-solving attempts to improve human welfare within the political, legal
and practical parameters of the ‘real world’.
The policy orientation of human security—and its adoption as a policy framework by
some governments—has therefore made some critical security scholars particularly suspicious
of the concept. According to this, even though the concept is reflected in policy
discourse, it has made little impact upon policy outcomes (Chandler 2008a). Although
human security is used as a policy framework for programme implementation, the
extent to which states—even those which have publicly endorsed the concept—have
substantially changed their foreign or domestic policies is questionable (Christie 2010).
The principal reason for this is, in policy terms, because human security looks to state
actors as security providers—even though they are tied to the structures of deprivation
and insecurity (Bellamy and McDonald 2002). From this perspective, state elites cannot
be truly committed to promoting a human security agenda because the state is embedded
in the structural conditions from which insecurities arise. Insofar as human security
is largely a policy movement, mainstream academic analysis in this area is therefore
bound to reproduce and legitimize existing institutions of power and is therefore not
a meaningful reconceptualization of security. It reflects, defends and works within the
existing norms and institutions and seeks to address human security within this ‘reality’.
For this reason, the manner in which human security has been adopted in various
national and international policy circles—including the UN—is troubling for some
critical scholars (Booth 2007: 324; Grayson 2008: 394). According to this, human security
is, in theory and practice, not a radical, emancipatory paradigm shift; it has been
willingly co-opted by states but has little positive impact upon policy. Rather, human
security reinforces and reproduces existing security attitudes and policies. Seeing
human security described in the UN Secretary-General’s report (General Assembly
2010) as a ‘tool for governments’ does lead one to wonder if the concept of human security
should still be seen—as it once was—as a radical alternative to orthodox models of
security. If human security is to be a meaningful challenge to orthodox security ideas
and practices, it must essentially be critical in outlook. The manner in which human
security has now been internalized within the policy discourse suggests that this is not
possible.
According to this critical line of reasoning, human security can never overcome its
central paradox: it apparently questions the conditions that produce human insecurity,
yet most human security scholarship and policy seem to endorse these structures and
norms. In particular, in practice, the human security idea appears to rely upon the state
for the operationalization of human security policy, thus exposing a contradiction. It
takes prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they
are organized as the given framework for action. The UN, e.g., clearly sees state sovereignty
and governments as the essential framework for promoting human security. It
HUMAN SECURITY
1175
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
calls for ‘people-centred’ approaches to security and well-being without contesting the
structural factors that result in deprivation and insecurity. For critical social scientists,
this tension undermines the credibility of the human security concept as a means of
emancipating vulnerable people and addressing deprivation.
A further aspect of the critical challenge to human security arises from its apparent
liberal orientation, raising further themes common to critical security studies and
criminology. According to this critique, human security promotes a neo-liberal agenda,
assuming that deprived people in the developing world are helpless victims, and therefore
human security provides the normative rationale for liberal intervention aimed
at ‘saving’ disadvantaged populations and also homogenizing the world around certain
values. This is seen in the increased focus upon human security in peacekeeping,
peacebuilding and conflict prevention activities. This, according to Richmond, demonstrates
the extent to which human security has been captured by the conservative wing
of liberalism and now ‘deployed as a cover for social engineering, institutionalisation
and statebuilding in order to provide a veneer of legitimacy for interventionary projects’
which are ultimately aimed at international stability and state institutions rather
than individual welfare (Richmond 2011: 43; also Begby and Burgess 2009). The emancipatory
vision of human security is lost. Human security operates ‘as if its subjects are
helpless and incapacitated would-be liberals’ (Richmond 2011: 44). Some of these ideas
are reflected in the critical criminology scholarship on security, and in particular the
idea of security being a predominant theme in governance (Crawford 2006a; Mythen
and Walklate 2006a; 2006b; Zedner 2009; Valverde 2011).
From this perspective, human security is part of the post-Cold War liberal internationalist
agenda, based upon the assumption of universally valid liberal norms. To draw
upon the criminological debates on security, human security—at least in the policy
world—might therefore be seen as an exercise in international security governance, and
an illustration of the creeping securitization of everyday life that can have pernicious
effects upon liberty and the distribution of resources. This suggests that governance—at
all levels—is increasingly justified by the claims of security (Valverde 2001; Simon 2007;
Zedner 2009: 143) and this brings many costs in terms of public trust. It is also firmly
situated within the development-security nexus, seen from a critical perspective as an
agenda which demonizes weak or problematic states as a potential threat to the interests
of industrialized, powerful states. This approach tends to externalize, demonize
and contain problems in the developing, ‘other’, world. According to Chandler (2008a:
435), the exaggeration of ‘new’ post-Cold War security threats and their interconnectedness—especially
those emanating from poor countries—is firmly a part of this agenda
and one which the human security concept has reinforced. Instability, conflict and state
weakness in the developing world are therefore increasingly seen as a threat to international
security and Western interests. Intervention and military humanitarianism in the
interests of stabilizing conflict-prone societies is the prevailing response to this. However,
the critical challenge to human security goes much further in arguing that when states
deploy the human security motif, it is as a pretext for hegemonic forms of intervention
and control (Shani 2007: 7). In a related manner, human security has become controversial
in some policy circles and is now seen by some states as a form of Western hegemony
and liberal cultural imperialism (Mgbeoji 2006).
The securitization of underdevelopment and state weakness results in a lack of sensitivity
towards, and understanding of, problems elsewhere in the world, and a failure to
NEWMAN
1176
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
appreciate that these problems are in some ways a consequence of pathologies inherent
in the international system. It can also lead to peacebuilding policies which are not
effective. According to some analysts, it also forms a part of a broader agenda to coercively
reform ‘developing’ countries. The promotion of human security—along with
liberal peacebuilding and state-building—is a key part of the normative pretext for
this. In peacebuilding, ‘its application has helped to prioritize state-building and security
sector reform, while side-lining local agency and democratic control’ (Turner et al.
2011: 93). The ultimate objective of the securitization of underdevelopment and weak
states through human security is containing instability and system failures in the developing
world in the interests of international security. According to this, human security
is a part of a broader agenda directed at stabilizing an international order which
serves powerful, industrial interests in the global north. McCormack (2011: 104) goes
further by arguing that the war on terror fits into the framework established by human
security: ‘the purported links between poverty and terrorism and the global threats
emerging from the poorest and weakest nations have always been an integral part of
the human security agenda’.
A further aspect of the critical challenge to human security—which reflects another
interest common to international relations and criminology—is its interpretation
through Foucauldian analysis, an approach which focuses upon the subjugation of
bodies and control of populations as a process of governance. From this perspective,
human security is an extension of broader socio-political regimes of power and control
which have penetrated ever deeper into society, in this case in the interests of global
capitalism and stability (Alt 2011; Duffield 2007; Jabri 2007; Doucet and de Larrinaga
2011).
Naturally, the human security concept is also subject to broader critiques that have
been generated towards the concept of security and securitization as a negative, pernicious
force in whose name rights are trampled upon (Neocleous 2011). Criminologists
(Zedner 2009: 48)  have joined political scientists (Buzan 2004: 370)  in specifically
challenging human security for its role in this broader securitization. For Chandler
(2011: 124), ‘In the absence of traditional enemies, human security approaches fill the
gap with the securitisation of every issue from health, to the economy, to the environment’.
Richmond (2011: 48) interprets the role of human security in peacebuilding and
state-building activities in the same vein; ultimately, the concept operates as a liberal
but essentially oppressive form of bio-power. In this sense, conventional international
norms such as state sovereignty and non-intervention are challenged but not in a universal
manner; rather, the human security concept and the development-security nexus
are used as a pretext for intervention into weak, underdeveloped states. In turn, this
reinforces global power inequalities since the decisions about which societies are ‘failing’—and
thus dangerous—and where intervention occurs are a reflection of power
(Duffield 2007; Jabri 2007; McCormack 2011: 108–9). This critique certainly seems to
fit into Johnston’s (2006: 34–5) vision of ‘transnational security governance’, in which
market solutions are promoted in developing countries in the interests of ‘security’.
According to some of the critical perspectives, the progressive essence of human security—if
it ever existed—has been lost, leaving something devoid of transformational
potential (Bosold 2011: 29). Clearly, many of these critical perspectives are not merely
suggesting that the human security idea, as a policy orientation, is ineffective or insignificant,
but rather that it is pernicious and oppressive.
HUMAN SECURITY
1177
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
Can Human Security Ever Be Truly Critical Whilst Also Policy Relevant?
From a critical perspective, as Chandler (2008a) observes, it is important to consider
why human security has become mainstreamed—at least rhetorically—in policy
circles since the 1990s. For him, the reason is simple: it is because human security
serves existing state interests. For some analysts, this flaw undermines the value of
human security. Turner et al. (2011: 83) write that, ‘human security cannot be rescued
because it has been institutionalised and co-opted to work in the interests of
global capitalism, militarism and neoliberal governance’. The critical security studies
engagement with human security is now so condemnatory that there seems little
ground for dialogue.
Clearly, the human security concept does not exist in a vacuum, devoid of existing
political structures and institutions. Any evaluation of it must take this as a starting
point. With this in mind, this conclusion will consider first if policy approaches to
human security—e.g. those undertaken through the UNTFHS—can be meaningful
at the human level, even if they do not address the structural sources of insecurity.
Secondly, given that human security is associated so closely with policy, is a critical academic
approach to human security possible?
The UN’s revival of the human security idea—reflected in General Assembly
Resolution 66/290 and the Secretary-General’s reports—is conservative and far
removed from the radicalism of the 1994 HDR that made human security so significant.
Clearly, the recent incarnation of human security does not address the structural
causes of insecurity and deprivation or challenge or change existing institutions of
power. It is not emancipatory, and it is debateable whether it is empowering. From the
UN perspective, human security has brought ‘tangible improvements in the daily lives
of people’ (Secretary-General, A/68/685, para. 7). As the survey of human security programmes
and initiatives earlier demonstrates, the lives of many people are improved
in the ‘name’ of human security. At best, therefore, human security can be applauded
at a project level.
But within an inhospitable power political environment, a shift towards the needs of
individuals and communities might be something to be welcomed, even when it does
not challenge or change the institutions which generate and perpetuate that insecurity.
When human security has been adopted by policy actors, it has arguably been applied
to some positive effect—such as in the campaigns to prohibit anti-personnel landmines
and promote an international responsibility to protect. To reject this outright because
it reflects a ‘problem-solving’ approach to address insecurity is morally questionable.
In policy circles, the human security movement may be guilty of exaggerating its
impact or endorsing rhetoric that is difficult to judge. The operationalization of human
security arguably also fails to address the structural and underlying causes of deprivation
and insecurity. However, the claim that human security is a conscious attempt to
repress or control communities in the developing world does not stand up to scrutiny.
Human security simply does not have that much impact; it is hardly the ‘dominant
framework of international regulation’ that Chandler (2008b: 465) seeks to expose. If
the critical challenge was valid, then the empirical outcomes of intervention would be
very much different. If human security was a hegemonic tool for neo-imperial control,
we would expect to see powerful states embrace it far more actively. Societies which host
human security or peacebuilding programmes are demonstrably not transformed into
NEWMAN
1178
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
neo-liberal experiments. Liberal internationalism is not hegemonic in terms of transforming
these societies. Human security is not particularly effective, it has not transformed
international politics or the institutions relevant to security—it therefore has
not overcome its central paradox—but it is not a neo-liberal or bio-political conspiracy
aimed at controlling peripheral populations.
According to the critical challenge to human security, there is no meaningful prospect
for academics to seek to bring about changes in policy which enhance the life chances of
individuals and communities—or even, that to do so is to reinforce and therefore to be
complicit in existing structures of power. If this is true, then what is the value of ‘critical
security studies’? There is ample evidence that positive change can occur within existing
institutions. Action in support of positive changes in the lives of deprived individuals and
communities is not inevitably compromised or perverted by a statist policy framework.
Securitization can bring hazards, but that is not a sustainable argument against securitization
when the objective is to prevent or address egregious human deprivation or
insecurity. The response to the pernicious consequences of securitization should be a
demand for legitimate, accountable and proportionate securitization which prioritizes
the ‘human good of security’ as a public good (Loader and Walker 2006: 166).
Is it possible to reconcile critical aspirations with political realities? From a critical
perspective, to attempt to do so inevitably undermines the value of human security.
But to stick to the pure form of human security makes policy impact unlikely because
it makes policy engagement difficult. How can policy-engaged yet critical scholars
reclaim human security?
Instead of giving up on human security—and indeed the state as a provider of security—a
critical academic approach can be pursued that engages with policy but which
promotes a greater consideration of the structural dimensions of deprivation and insecurity.
Human security must be used to interrogate and problematize the values and
institutions which currently exist as they relate to human welfare and more thoroughly
question the interests that are served by these institutions. For example, the grassroots
activities supported by the UNTFHS need to be seen in the context of the pathologies
inherent in the structure of the international system which give rise to these types of
challenges. These activities address food insecurity, lack of access to basic healthcare
and primary education, vulnerability to natural disasters, lack of access to sexual and
reproductive health services, deprivation and victimization in forcibly displaced populations,
lack of access to life-saving medicines, human trafficking and the threat of cluster
bombs and unexploded ordinance. This does result in meaningful improvements in the
lives of individuals and communities which receive such support, in the name of human
security. However, the prevalence of these challenges can only be understood—and
addressed—in their social, political and economic contexts. These deprivations are the
consequence of severe underdevelopment rooted in the international terms of trade, the
integration of developing societies in neo-liberal norms of globalization and unrealistic
poor country debts. The failure of the ‘international community’ to address situations
of armed conflict or uphold an effective asylum and refugee system, the failure to prevent
the free flow of weapons into conflict-prone regions and a pharmaceutical market
which makes it impossible for poor communities to afford life-saving medicines are also
structural conditions that are ignored by the operationalization of human security.
As long as there is insufficient or insincere commitment to underdevelopment—and
the international causes of this—then human security programmes will continue to be
HUMAN SECURITY
1179
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
superficial and merely ameliorative. But there is space to engage with human security
in a way that raises these broader structural issues with policy stakeholders and that
is where a critical approach can make its contribution, as a device to interrogate state
practice. Security debates in criminology offer new insights that are relevant to human
security. In particular, the much greater attention to the governance of security (Zedner
2009: 143–74) in terms of societal actors—such as the police, the judiciary and civil society
actors—and to the privatization of security brings implications for human security
that can be engaged with as a cross-disciplinary project. This brings with it a welcome
focus upon human security as an issue within liberal Western societies and not only
underdeveloped regions of the world. In addition, whilst scholars with a background in
international relations tend to approach the ‘state’ as a monolithic entity, criminology
offers a far more nuanced analysis of the state which is relevant to security and insecurity.
More specifically, an ethical framework is needed to judge if human security interventions
are morally compromised. A  human security intervention is flawed if it is
merely managing human misery or containing the consequences of this or if it serves
to directly legitimize or perpetuate the broader structures which give rise to this insecurity.
In these circumstances, it would be flawed even if it ameliorated the suffering of
some individuals and communities, because it plays a role in perpetuating the broader
sources of deprivation which undermine the personal security of far larger numbers
of people. A human security intervention would be illegitimate if it diverts attention
or resources away from addressing the underlying sources of deprivation. A human
security intervention would also be problematic if its operationalization involves concessions
to the political authorities which are responsible for the broader situation of
deprivation, since this would directly or indirectly endorse those authorities. Human
security interventions, in the context of wider structural inequities, are morally acceptable
when they are not operationalized through illegitimate authorities, provided they
have a demonstrable positive impact, and they are undertaken in a way that does not
obstruct other efforts to address the structural sources of insecurity and injustice. Above
all, we should not pre-judge or dismiss the value of humanitarian action or agency
through a ‘critical’ lens, even when the political structure is inhospitable to progress.
References
Alt, S. (2011), ‘Problematizing Life Under Biopower: A Foucauldian Versus an Agambenite
Critique of Human Security’, in D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on
Human Security, 144–56. Routledge.
Aradau, C. and Van Munster, R. (2009), ‘Exceptionalism and the ‘War on Terror’
Criminology Meets International Relations’, British Journal of Criminology, 49: 686–701.
Arbour, L. (2008), ‘The Responsibility to Protect as a Duty of Care in International Law
and Practice’, Review of International Studies, 34: 445–58.
Begby, E. and Burgess, J. P. (2009), ‘Human Security and Liberal Peace’, Public Reason, 1: 91–104.
Bellamy, A. J. and McDonald, M. (2002), ‘‘The Utility of Human Security’: Which
Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas & Tow’, Security Dialogue, 33: 373–7.
Booth, K. (2007), Theory of World Security. Cambridge University Press.
Bosold, D. (2011), ‘Development of the Human Security Field. A Critical Examination’, in
D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security, 28–42. Routledge.
NEWMAN
1180
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
Buzan, B. (2004), ‘A Reductionist, Idealistic Notion That Adds Little Analytical Value’,
Security Dialogue, 35: 369–70.
Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009), The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge
University Press.
Buzan,B.,Wæver,O.anddeWilde,J.(1998),Security:A NewFrameworkforAnalysis.LynneRienner.
Chandler, D. (2008a), ‘Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark’, Security Dialogue, 39:
427–38.
——. (2008b), ‘Human Security II: Waiting for the Tail to Wag the Dog: A Rejoinder to
Ambrosetti, Owen and Wibben’, Security Dialogue, 39: 463–9.
——. (2011), ‘Rethinking Global Discourses of Security’, in D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds,
Critical Perspectives on Human Security, 114–28. Routledge.
Christie, R. (2010), ‘Critical Voices and Human Security: To Endure, To Engage or to
Critique?’, Security Dialogue, 41: 169–90.
Commission on Human Security (2003), Human Security Now. UN.
Cox, R. W. (1981), ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10: 126–55.
Crawford,A.(2006a),‘NetworkedGovernanceandthePost-RegulatoryState?Steering,Rowing
and Anchoring the Provision of Policing and Security,’ Theoretical Criminology, 10: 449–79.
——. (2006b), ‘Policing and Security as ‘Club Goods’: The New Enclosures?’, in J. Wood
and B. Dupont, eds, Democracy, Society and the Governance of Security, 111–38. Cambridge
University Press.
Crawford, A. and Hutchinson, S. (2015), ‘Mapping the Contours of ‘Everyday Security’:
Time, Space and Emotion’, British Journal of Criminology, first published online:  17
December 2015. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azv121.
De Lint, W. and Virta, S. (2004), ‘Security in Ambiguity Towards a Radical Security
Politics’, Theoretical Criminology, 8: 465–89.
Doucet, M. G. and de Larrinaga, M. (2011), ‘Human Security and the Securing of
Human Life’, in D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security,
129–43. Routledge.
Duffield, M. (2007), Development, Security and Unending War. Polity Press.
Evans, G. (2008), The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All.
Brookings Institution Press.
Floyd, R. (2011), ‘Can Securitization Theory Be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a
Just Securitization Theory’, Security Dialogue, 42: 427–39.
GeneralAssembly(2010),HumanSecurity.ReportoftheSecretary-General,8March(A/64/701).
Goold, B., Loader, I. and Thumala, A. (2010), ‘Consuming Security? Tools for a Sociology
of Security Consumption’, Theoretical Criminology, 14: 3–30.
——. (2013), ‘The Banality of Security: The Curious Case of Surveillance Cameras’, British
Journal of Criminology, 53: 977–96.
Grayson,K.(2008),‘HumanSecurityasPower/Knowledge:TheBiopoliticsofaDefinitional
Debate’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21: 383–401.
Hoyle, C. (2007), ‘Feminism, Victimology, and Criminal Violence’, in S. Walklate, ed.,
Handbook of Victims and Victimology, 146–74. Routledge.
Hynek, N. and Chandler, D. (2011), ‘Emancipation and Power in Human Security’, in
D. Chandler and N. Hynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security. Rethinking
Emancipation and Power in International Relations, 1–10. Routledge.
Jabri, V. (2007), War and the Transformation of Global Politics. Macmillan.
HUMAN SECURITY
1181
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
Johnston, L. (2006), ‘Transnational Security Governance’, in J. Wood and B. Dupont, eds,
Democracy, Society and the Governance of Security, 33–51. Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, L. and Shearing, C. (2003), Governing Security: Explorations in Policing and Justice.
Routledge.
Loader, I. (1997), ‘Thinking Normatively About Private Security’, Journal of Law and Society,
24: 377–94.
——. (2002), ‘Policing, Securitization and Democracy in Europe’, Criminal Justice, 2: 125–53.
Loader, I. and Walker, N. (2006), ‘Necessary Virtues: The Legitimate Place of the State
in the Production of Security’, in J. Wood and B. Dupont, eds, Democracy, Society and the
Governance of Security, 165–95. Cambridge University Press.
Los, M. (2002), ‘Post-Communist Fear of Crime and the Commercialization of Security,’
Theoretical Criminology, 6: 165–88.
MacFarlane, S. N. and Khong Y. F. (2006), Human Security and the UN. A Critical History.
Indiana University Press.
Mack, A. (2004), ‘A Signifier of Shared Values’, Security Dialogue, 35: 366–7.
Marhia, N. (2013), ‘Some Humans Are More Human Than Others: Troubling the ‘Human’
in Human Security From a Critical Feminist Perspective’, Security Dialogue, 44: 19–35.
Mariana, V. (2011), ‘Questions of Security: A  Framework for Research’, Theoretical
Criminology, 15: 3–22.
Martin, M. and Owen, T. (2010), ‘The Second Generation of Human Security: Lessons
From the UN and EU Experience’, International Affairs, 86: 211–24.
Matlary, J. (2008), ‘Much Ado About Little: The EU and Human Security’, International
Affairs, 84: 131–43.
McClanahan, B. and Brisman, A. (2015), ‘Climate Change and Peacemaking Criminology:
Ecophilosophy, Peace and Security in the “War on Climate Change”’, Critical Criminology,
23: 417–31.
McCormack, T. (2011), ‘The Limits to Emancipation in the Human Security Framework’, in
D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security, 99–113. Routledge.
Mgbeoji, I. (2006), ‘The Civilised Self and the Barbaric Other: Imperial Delusions of Order
and the Challenges of Human Security’, Third World Quarterly, 27: 855–69.
Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006a), Beyond the Risk Society: Critical Reflections on Risk and
Human Security. Open University Press.
——.(2006b),‘CriminologyandTerrorism-WhichThesis?RiskSocietyorGovernmentality?’,
British Journal of Criminology, 46: 379–98.
——. (2008), ‘Terrorism, Risk and International Security: The Perils of Asking ‘What If’?’,
Security Dialogue, 39: 221–42.
Neocleous, M. (2011), Anti-Security. Red Quill Press.
Newman, E. (2001), ‘Human Security and Constructivism’, International Studies Perspectives,
2: 239–51.
——. (2010), ‘Critical Human Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, 36: 77–94.
Pogge, T. (2010), Politics as Usual. What Lies Behind Pro-Poor Rhetoric. Polity.
Richmond, O. P. (2011), ‘Post-Colonial Hybridity and the Return of Human Security’, in
D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security, 43–55. Routledge.
Roberts, D. (2008), Human Insecurity: Global Structures of Violence. Zed Books.
Shani, G. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in G. Shani, M. Sato and M. Pasha, eds, Protecting Human
Security in a Post 9/11 World, 1–14. Palgrave.
NEWMAN
1182
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018
——. (2011), ‘Securitizing ‘Bare Life’. Critical Perspectives on Human Security Discourse’,
in D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives on Human Security, 56–68. Routledge.
Shani, G., Sato, M. and Pasha, M. (eds) (2007), Protecting Human Security in a Post 9/11
World. Palgrave.
Shearing, C. D. and Stenning, P. (1983), ‘Private Security: Implications for Social Control’,
Social Problems, 30: 493–506.
Simon, J. (2007), Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American
Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. Oxford University Press.
Teitel, R. (2011), Humanity’s Law. Oxford University Press.
Thomas, C. (2002), ‘Global Governance and Human Security’, in R. Wilkinson and
S. Hughes, eds, Global Governance. Critical Perspectives, 109–28. Routledge.
Tripp, A., Ferree, M. and Ewig, C. (2013), Gender, Violence, and Human Security: Critical
Feminist Perspectives. NYU Press.
Truong, T., Wieringa S. and Chhachhi, A. (eds) (2007), Engendering Human Security:
Feminist Perspectives. Zed Books.
Turner, M., Cooper, N. and Pugh, M. (2011), ‘Institutionalised and Co-opted. Why
Human Security Has Lost Its Way’, in D. Chandler and N. Nynek, eds, Critical Perspectives
on Human Security, 83–96. Routledge.
UN General Assembly (2005), World Summit Outcome, Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly, 24 October (A/RES/60/1).
UNHCR (1997), The State of the World’s Refugees 1997: A Humanitarian Agenda. UNHCR.
——. (2000),TheStateoftheWorld’sRefugees2000:FiftyYearsofHumanitarianAction.UNHCR.
——. (2006), The State of the World’s Refugees 2006: Human Displacement in the New
Millennium. UNHCR.
——. (2012), The State of the World’s Refugees 2012: In Search of Solidarity. UNHCR.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1994), Human Development Report. UN.
UN Secretary-General (2013), Follow-up to General Assembly Resolution 66/290 on Human
Security, Report of the Secretary-General, 23 December (A/68/685).
UNTFHS (2009), Human Security in Theory and Practice. Application of the Human Security
Concept and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. Human Security Unit, Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations.
——. (2012), Guidelines for the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, Seventh Revision.
Human Security Unit, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United
Nations, 9 November.
——. (2014), ‘Trust Fund Project Summaries’, UN Trust Fund for Human Security, UN,
New York, available online at www.un.org/humansecurity/publications/UNTFHS%20
Project%20Summaries.
Valverde, M. (2001), ‘Governing Security, Governing Through Security’, in R. Daniels, P.
Macklem and K. Roach, eds, The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Bill,
83–92. University of Toronto Press.
—— .(2011), ‘Questions of Security: A Framework for Research’, Theoretical Criminology, 15: 3–22.
Wood, J. and Dupont, B. (eds) (2006), Democracy, Society and the Governance of Security.
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, J. and Shearing, C. (2007), Imagining Security. Willan Publishing.
Zedner, L. (2006), ‘Liquid Security Managing the Market for Crime Control’, Criminology
and Criminal Justice, 6: 267–88.
——. (2009), Security. Routledge.
HUMAN SECURITY
1183
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/56/6/1165/2415309bygueston12October2018