人類安全

出自亞太綜合安全，Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Security

Human security refers to an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose proponents challenge the traditional notion of 國家安全 by arguing that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability.

The concept emerged from a 後冷戰, multi-disciplinary understanding of security involving a number of research fields, including development studies, international relations, strategic studies, and 人權. The United Nations Development Programme's 1994 人類發展報告<ref name="UNDP 1994">United Nations Development Programme (1994): Human Development Report</ref> is considered a milestone publication in the field of human security, with its argument that insuring "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" for all persons is the best path to tackle the problem of global insecurity. Human security is now frequently referred to in a wide variety of global policy discussions <ref>2005 World Summit outcome document, paragraph 143</ref> and is often taught in universities as part of international relations, globalization, or human rights studies.<ref>For numerous examples of this, see the Human Security Gateway, http://www.humansecuritygateway.com</ref>. Sciences Po in Paris also publishes a Journal of Human Security<ref>http://www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/journal/index.htm</ref>

Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness;<ref>Paris, Roland (2001): Human Security - Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? In: International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2</ref> that it has become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote certain causes; and that it does not help the research community understand what security means or help decision makers to formulate good policies.<ref>For a comprehensive analysis of all definitions, critiques and counter-critiques, see Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou & Chenoy, Anuradha M. Human Security: Concepts and Implications , London: Routledge, 2006</ref>.

[編輯] 概念

[編輯] 1994年聯合國發展計畫署的定義

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report and sought to influence the UN's 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. Since then, human security has been receiving more attention from the key global development institutions, such as the World Bank. Tadjbakhsh traces the evolution of human security in international organizations, concluding that the concept has been manipulated and transformed considerably since 1994 to fit organizational interests.<ref>S. Tadjbakhsh, "Human Security In International Organizations: Blessing or Scourge?", The Human Security Journal, Volume 4, Summer 2007</ref>[1]

The UNDP's 1994 Human Development Report's definition of human security argues that the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas:

• 經濟安全 — Economic security requires an assured basic income for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world’s people are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in developing countries, concern also arises in developed countries as well. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence.

• 糧食安全 — Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to economic security).

• 衛生安全 — Health Security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death are infectious and parasitic diseases, which kill 17 million people annually. In industrialized countries, the major killers are diseases of the circulatory system, killing 5.5 million every year. According to the United Nations, in both developing and industrial countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas, particularly children. This is mainly due to malnutrition and insufficient supply of medicine, clean water or other necessity for healthcare.

• 環境安全 — Environmental security aims to protect people from the short- and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment. In developing countries, lack of access to clean water resources is one of the greatest environmental threats. In industrial countries, one of the major threats is air pollution. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is another environmental security issue.

• 個人安全 — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors, from domestic abuse, or from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime.

• 社群安全 — Community security aims to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly minority ethnic groups are often threatened. About half of the world’s states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence.

• 政治安全 — Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey conducted by Amnesty International, political repression, systematic torture, ill treatment or disappearance was still practised in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information.

[編輯] 免於恐懼的自由vs免於匱乏的自由

In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats would receive adequate global attention and resources. Yet attempts to implement this human security agenda have led to the emergence of two major schools of thought — "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want". While the UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security requires attention to both freedom from fear and freedom from want, divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these threats.

• 免於恐懼的自由 — This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities. <ref>Human Security Centre. “What is Human Security.” Retrieved on 19 April 2008 from http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=24&itemid=59</ref> This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach towards Human Security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy. However, whether such “narrow” approach can truly serve its purpose in guaranteeing more fruitful results remains to be an issue. For instance, the conflicts in Darfur are often used in questioning the effectiveness of the "Responsibility to Protect”, a key component of the Freedom from Fear agenda.

• 免於匱乏的自由 — The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity<ref>United Nations Development Programme (1994): Human Development Report </ref> and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.<ref>Human Security Centre. Supra.</ref> Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and security goals.

Despite their differences, the two approaches to human security are considered as complementary rather than contradictory.<ref>Human Security Centre. Supra.</ref> For instance, the Government of Japan considered Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be equal in developing Japan’s foreign policy. Moreover, the UNDP 1994 called for the world’s attention to both agendas.

[編輯] 其他相關的界定

Though the two schools of human security categorized in UNDP 1994 report are most popular approaches for now, many scholars are still working for a more consistent and concrete interpretation.

• G. King and C. Murray<ref>King, Gary and Christopher Murray. Rethinking Human Security. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.116, No.4 #585-610 online</ref>. King and Murray try to narrow down the human security definition to one's "expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized poverty". In their definition, the "generalized poverty" means "falling below critical thresholds in any domain of well-being"; and it is in the same article, they give brief review and categories of "Domains of Well-being". This set of defition is similar with "freedom from want" but more concretely focused on some value system.
• Caroline Thomas<ref>Thomas, Caroline. 2000. Global governance, development and human security the challenge of poverty and inequality. London and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press. See also in Sabina Alkire, "A Conceptual Framework for Human Security", Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security, and Ethnicity (CRISE), Working Paper 2, London: University of Oxford, 2003, #15 online</ref>. She regards human security as describing "a condition of existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global.
• Roland Paris<ref>Paris, Roland. 2001. “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security. 26:2. 87-102.online</ref>. He argues that many ways to define "human security" are related with certain set of value and lose the neutral position. So he suggests to take human security as a category of research. As such, he gives a 2*2 matrix to illustrate the security studies field.

• Sabina Alkire<ref>Sabina Alkire, "A Conceptual Framework for Human Security", Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security, and Ethnicity (CRISE), Working Paper 2, London: University of Oxford, 2003. online</ref>.Different with those approaches seek to narrow down and specify the objective of human security, Sabina Alkire pushes the idea a step further as "to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, without impeding long-term human fulfilment". In a concept as such, she suggests the "vital core" cover a minimal or basic or fundamental set of functions related to survival, livelihood and dignity; and all institutions should at least and necessarily protect the core from any intervention.

[編輯] 與傳統安全的關係

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the philosophy of international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rise of the nation-states. While international relations theory includes many variants of traditional security, from realism to idealism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus on the primacy of the nation-state.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

Human security and traditional or national security are not mutually exclusive concepts. Without human security, traditional state security cannot be attained and vice-versa.

Human security requires strong and stable state security. If state security cannot be maintained, it may entail the existence of wars. Wars destroy human lives and scar survivors. During wars, flagrant gangs, mafias and black market activities can already increase human insecurities. Also, wars destroy homes, economic assets, crops, roads, banks and utility systems, countries face the enormous expense of rebuilding their assets and markets, usually from a reduced tax base and with unpredictable foreign assistance. Thus governments may cut social expenditures, and economic growth may slow or even contract. Poverty which is also an important concern of human security may often rise in wartime significantly. If there is no stable state security to prevent wars, human security would probably be harmed.

State security also requires human security. As United Nation Secretary-General Kofi Annan points out that human security encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care so on and so forth. Every step in this direction is also a step towards reducing poverty, achieving economic growth and preventing conflict which are all the objectives embedded in schools of human security, Freedom from want and freedom from fear, and these are the interrelated building blocks of human, and therefore national, security. Alternatively, if there is no sustainable human security, national security can also hardly be achieved.<ref>Chapter 1: Human Security Now, Final Report of the Commission on Human Security 2003, p.2-6</ref>

Hence, human security and state security are not mutually exclusive while they are actually mutually reinforcing and dependent on each other instead.

Furthermore, while traditional security’s main actor have dominantly been the state. Human security often employs both the state and the civic society as its primary actors. The civic society (e.g. NGOs) often plays a role of setting the agenda by making the general public and the respective national government awareness on a certain issue. Once awareness reaches to a critical point, both the public and the government will call for certain actions to be taken. This awareness will lead to policy change, either a multilaterally change among the international community (e.g. the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines, discussed below) or a unilateral change of the state’s own policy (e.g. a state’s increased humanitarian aid toward another country). Besides initiating the policy change, the civic society is also very important for protecting and empowering individual’s human security.

Euxbol <a href="http://bxcvmyfhkaxj.com/">bxcvmyfhkaxj</a>, [url=http://kpaticnmdofx.com/]kpaticnmdofx[/url], [link=http://xubnzfcfoqrk.com/]xubnzfcfoqrk[/link], http://knamctrvuwvx.com/

[編輯] 與人權的關係

Human security is indebted to the human rights tradition (the ideas of natural law and natural rights). The development of the human security model can be seen to have drawn upon ideas and concepts fundamental to the human rights tradition. Both approaches use the individual as the main referent and both argue that a wide range of issues (i.e. civil rights, cultural identity, access to education and healthcare) are fundamental to human dignity. A major difference between the two models is in their approach to addressing threats to human dignity and survival. Whilst the human rights framework takes a legalistic approach, the human security framework, by utilizing a diverse range of actors, adopts flexible and issue-specific approaches, which can operate at local, national or international levels. And some others argue that human rights believes that human-beings are born equal and maintains luck egalitarianism, while human security believes that there is a threshold to give every human being the equal condition to fulfill their basic needs.

The nature of the relationship between human security and human rights is contested among human security advocates. Some human security advocates argue that the goal of human security should be to build upon and strengthen the existing global human rights legal framework <ref name="Hampson, 2002">Hampson, F., Madness in the multitude: human security and world disorder, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2002</ref>. However, other advocates view the human rights legal framework as part of the global insecurity problem and believe that a human security approach should propel us to move above and beyond this legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of inequality and violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's world<ref name="Thomas, 2001">Thomas, C., (2001) “Global governance, development and human security: exploring the links,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22(2):159-175</ref>.

lCj7e8 <a href="http://vmxkykezlmfw.com/">vmxkykezlmfw</a>, [url=http://vlesjcalgeip.com/]vlesjcalgeip[/url], [link=http://tuajbcicsgov.com/]tuajbcicsgov[/link], http://dxagposkvkrr.com/

[編輯] 預防和重建

Human security seeks to address underlying causes and long-term implications of conflicts instead of simply reacting to problems, as the traditional security approach is often accused of doing. "The basic point of preventive efforts is, of course, to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the need for intervention altogether,"<ref name="r2p20">ICISS "The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty", Ottawa: International Development Research Council, 2001, p19</ref> while an investment in rehabilitation or rebuilding seeks to insure that former conflicts do not breed future violence. The concepts of prevention and rebuilding are clearly embraced as the “responsibility to prevent” and well elaborated in "The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty."

預防
Human security's emphasis on root cause preventive action can be traced to the UN Charter, Article 55, which recognizes that solutions to international economic, social, health and related problems; international, cultural and educational cooperation; and universal respect for human rights are all essential for "the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations."<ref>ibid, p22</ref> Human security also supports efforts at direct prevention, which refers to “political/diplomatic, economic, legal and military” instruments used in order to avoid the direct employment of coercive measures against the state concerned. International legal sanctions including the establishment of specialist tribunals to deal with war crimes committed in specific conflicts, say, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone conflicts plus the International Criminal Court are the tactics that aim to deter potential perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes.<ref>ibid, p23-24</ref>

重建
Apart from pre-conflicts prevention, Human security seeks to expand the scope to rebuilding or rehabilitation of post-intervention as to consolidate peace and prevent a recurrence of armed confrontation. A commitment to build durable peace, and promote good governance and sustainable development is required as often the inadequacy of post-intervention reconstruction has left countries struggling with underlying problems which led to conflicts originally. Security, justice and reconciliation and development are the three crucial areas. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of local security forces, rebuilding of judicial systems and encouragement of economic growth are necessary to restore law and order and to ensure development of a country.<ref>ibid, p39-41</ref>

難題
For prevention, some states are reluctant to accept any internationally endorsed preventive measures including the softest and most supportive kind. It is because they fear an “internationalization" of problems will lead to future "interference" or intervention.

For rebuilding, political leaders are concerned that post-intervention efforts could give “legitimacy” or momentum to internal rebellion or secessionist force, or become a basis for separatist claims.<ref>ibid, p25</ref> Post-intervention rebuilding should relate to self-determination which territorial self-government and autonomy can be restored through means like monitored or facilitated elections by intervening authorities. The UN Charter, Article 76.b, has addressed this concern stressing that it is to respond to threats to human life, but not to change constitutional arrangements or undermine sovereignty.<ref>ibid, p43</ref>

9DcVAd <a href="http://jftssvvsrhnm.com/">jftssvvsrhnm</a>, [url=http://hdmbbpqglfbf.com/]hdmbbpqglfbf[/url], [link=http://fxhchhweyknr.com/]fxhchhweyknr[/link], http://snrotzbhdchx.com/

[編輯] 批評

[編輯] 概念的模糊

什麼構成一項安全威脅?

Some critics argue that there is large degree of subjectivity in defining what constitute a security threat,<ref>Henk, Dan In parameters. Human security: Relevance and implications. p. 91-106 Summer 2005 </ref> absence of threshold on to what level of insecurity constitutes a security threat leave the concept of human security vague. While in UNDP it has defined seven types of security issues concerned under Human Security paradigm, there is a lack of further explanation in what circumstances are these issues to be securitized and solved with global cooperation. For instance, to which level the loss of "community security" under UNDP will be considered as a security threat to that nation and the globe.

對定義一致的缺乏

It remains unclear whether the concept of human security can serve as a practical guide. Although the general idea is that human security would shift the focus from a state-centered to a people-centered approach to security , the fact is that like "sustainable development", human security lacks a precise definition. At present, there are at least four different versions (the UNDP version, the Japanese version, the Canadian version and the EU version). The main discrepancy among the definitions is whether to adopt a narrow or wide concept of human security. The narrow definition, also known as the "Freedom from Fear" approach, limits the scope of human security to violent conflicts while the broad definition, usually referred to as the "Freedom from Want" approach includes socio-economic issues such as poverty and diseases into the human security agenda.

On the one hand, opponents of the "Freedom from Fear" approach argue that it fails to address the root causes of security threats hence it is inneficient in enhancing human security. These causes are mainly unbearable living conditions like extreme and prolonged poverty, or the lack of basic resources such as water and food. In other words, this approach treats the "symptoms"--violent acts but does not cure the "disease"---human security threats. On the other hand, opponents of the "Freedom from Want" approach argue that the broad definition encompasses too many issues related to human rights and development.These issues are usually inter-connected and involve complicated causal relationships and furthermore it requires even more extensive and close cooperation between different sectors, making the human security concept even harder to be operationalized.

Since there is no consensus on which schools of thought should be the main focus of the human security paradigm, some critics suggest combining the two schools of thoughts, some even suggest not considering the causes of insecurity through any of the two approaches, but instead looking at the severity of the threats to define what issues are included in the human security agenda. Such discrepancies can hinder international cooperation.

The lack of a clear definition is not the only factor that obstructs international cooperation, human security advocates have failed to this day to assign specific roles to different actors in the international arena. In the traditional security approach, the government is responsible for protecting its citizens, whereas in the human security approach the responsiibility does not yet lie on solid hands, leaving room for disputes and more threats.

如何排定安全威脅的優先順序?

Some critics also argue that human security has a very broad scope, there are lots of issues involved and obviously prioritization is needed. Yet there is not a clearly established hierarchy or framework guiding how to choose between competing goals, decide which threat deserves most attention and concentrate their resources on specific solutions to immediate problems.<ref> S. Tadjbakhsh,“Human Security: The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept", Paris, UNESCO Conference Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince, 13 Sep 2005, </ref>The potential risk of lacking principles for prioritizing is that some political actors may manipulate the prioritizing process to reach their political objective.<ref> S. Tadjbakhsh, “Human Security: The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept", Paris, UNESCO Conference Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince, 13 Sep 2005, </ref> Nations with larger power may, through different channels such as media and partnership with corporations and political alliances, intentionally shift the international communities’ attention to one or two specific threats in some nations, yet at the back wants to achieve some political objectives for its own interest.

[編輯] 實行上的問題

Further and deeper questions about this approach revolve around how this concept has been and could be practiced; whether or not the "human security" approach is the best tool for addressing global threats and how practical or feasible these measures are. The allocation of available resources alone may preclude addressing all of the varied threats to human security as outlined in the Human Development Report and Millennium Development Goals.<ref name=Sachs>Sachs, J (2005). The end of poverty, How we can make it happen in our lifetime. Penguin USA</ref>

There are also many questions regarding the best method in providing human security to everyone. Between the two schools of thought, there has therefore been a raging debate as to which would be a more appropriate route to take in trying to provide with a more holistic yet realistic concept of "security". While on one hand it would seem that the freedom from fear school is a much more attainable goal, albeit in a much more limited scope. The Freedom from Want approach is considered to be too ambitious to some and many are unsure of how to determine the exact “want” issues. It is also doubtful whether the world would have enough time or the resources available to deal with the issue, whether it be the resources in real terms or logictical terms. The nature of the wants aspects – intrastate conflicts, humanitarian interventions, economic security, environmental security and so on, means that its work in alleviating inter-state conflicts is still far from perfect. Also, it is difficult to measure how successful security benefits really are and how to further improve them in the future.

Tadjbakhsh introduced seven challenging questions on the concept of human security on September 13 2005 at the “Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince” discussion held at UNESCO:

1) Can there be an agreement on definitions? Without a consensus on the definition of human security, it will be difficult to implement and decide on a common human security program. Today, there is an agreement that human security should be taken from a people-centered more than a state-centered approach, but as mentioned above, the definition or scope of human security is still vague.

2) Is the rise of “National Security” disrupting the process of expanding human security? Since the September 11 attacks, the attention on security has become more on national security rather than human security. According to a study by Christian Aid, “the year 2004 saw $1 billion in aid was divered to the war on terrorism at the expense of poverty and MDGs.” As the focus has shifted from a bottom-up approach to a top-down approach, this has also meant that the investments made are strategically long-term plans rather than short term, and this has been reflected in the amount of spending. Military expenditures as of 2004 were apparently “twenty times larger than aid outlays,” as stated by the SIRPI Yearbook 2004. The question now is, is it too late to revive the focus of state and national security to human security?

3) Who is responsible for implementation? Much discussion today has been in regards to the approach of human security, but with little emphasis on who is in charge of implementing it. Many states have “adopted it as a foreign policy tool” but it has mostly been disregarded “as a domestic policy on development and human rights.” Also, people seem to be absent in the process of human security; “people are not passive recipient of security,” or victims of its absence, but active subjects who should contribute directly to identifying and implementing solutions to security problems.” There also lies the lack of mandate for IGO's to act in times of need. The genocide in Rwanda and to a certain degree the acts which are currently occurring in Darfur seem to point to this direction. The lack of the strong political will to act in times of dire need has been cited by former UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan as a major speedbump to eliminating immediate security threats.

4) What are the priorities and trade-offs? “Which of the many threats that exist deserves the most attention?” There is no prioritization or “hierarchy” today on which issues are more important than others. This can cause difficulties in establishing goals and directing resources on specific solutions to immediate problems. Specifically under the current context of the world, where there are so many growing problems, including increasing food prices, scarce fresh water sources and the ever-prevalent threat of regional instability in "hotzones" around the world; it seems necessary to have some sort of an agenda as to what threat must be contained first.

5) Can a “true inter-sectoral agenda” be implemented? Are we ready or able to create “inter, or better yet, intra-sectoral interventions?” There needs to be more focus on “relationships,” how an intervention can positively or negatively affect other areas and how these effects can improve the human security intervention approach. However, as idealistic as this sounds, the question is how we will implement this when there is a "lack of interdisciplinary approaches among donors and governments”? Once again this also raises the issue of the scope of security. Under current status quo it is primarily states and IGO's that are the primary actors in any security crisis, whereas it is the individuals of the states that are actually at harm. While NGO's and other humanitarian organizations do raise efforts to focus on individuals, there is still a massive gap between the two.

6) How can we better understand conflicts? It is important to understand conflicts in order to resolve and prevent them, and it is easiest to understand conflict during times of conflict, “both to address conflict prevention and for rebuilding and reconstruction in post conflict-stages.” Today, we question how well do we really understand conflict? How can we improve our understanding of it?

7) How can we best implement human security and not do harm? In the past, when human intervention was taken in countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda, some have argued that more harm was done than benefit. Interventions must be better “targeted, implemented, monitored, and coordinated” to decrease “dependency, power and patronage of certain groups.” Something must be done to ensure that future interventions do not cause harm, but the question now is how.<ref name="Shahrbanou">Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, Human Security : The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept, "Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince", UNESCO, September 13 2005-09-14, Paris France</ref>

[編輯] 國家主權

The potential conflict between state sovereignty and human security can be best highlighted by the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It was introduced as a procedural system when to initiate military intervention of other states or the United Nations in the "Responsibility to Protect" Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The report introduced a new perspective that sovereignty not only points to power but also the responsibility to protect its citizens. If a state is unable or fails to protect its citizens, other states have the responsibility to intervene and state sovereignty has to succumb to this responsibility ]]<ref name="MacFarlane, Thielking, & Weiss">Neil S MacFarlane, Caroline J. Thielking, Thomas G. Weiss, "The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?" Third World Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 5, (2004) pp. 977-992</ref>.

Tool of developed countries

The Group of 77(G77) had expressed its skepticism for fear it would lead to violations of state sovereignty<ref name="Shahrbanou">Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, Human Security : The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept, "Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince", UNESCO, September 13 2005-09-14, Paris France</ref>. Critics of the concept, including China, India, France and the US acting out of fear that such an approach would provide new excuses for unwarranted interventions <ref name="Shahrbanou">Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, Human Security : The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept, "Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince", UNESCO, September 13 2005-09-14, Paris France</ref>. For example, many countries especially those less developed ones accuse those from the First World deliberately intervening with their internal affairs and undermine their sovereignty <ref name="Evans & Sahnoun">Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, "The Responsibility to Protect", Foreign Affairs, November/December 2002, Vol. 81, Issue 6</ref>. One typical example is China. The Chinese Government accused of countries including the US of intervening with China's internal affairs after criticisms of those countries that China fails to protect her citizens against arbitrary detention.

Many critics view the human security in distrust and view it as the tool of powerful states to foster dependency. Although it might be welcome that funds or aids in face of natural disasters, this kind of aids may nevertheless be used by rich and powerful countries to extend their national interests. Marxists term this as a modern form of imperialism. Marxists contend that rich countries by providing "humanitarian aids" foster dependency of poor countries so that they can maintain an exploitative relationship and can derive benefit from those poorer countries <ref name="Gilpin">Robert Gilpin (2001), Global political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order, Chapter 3 and 4</ref>. States provide humanitarian aid to the poor countries in the name of "human security" and in return, the developed countries can guarantee undisputed cheap labour. Another example is the aids offered by the World Bank led by the US to Latin -America countries in their 1980s financial crisis <ref name="Deutsch">K W Deutsch, (1980) “Images of politics: some classic theories of behavior and community”, Politics and Government. pp. 92-91</ref>. The World Bank is often criticized as favouring the rich countries as they has set the precondition for aid delivery to any country: the countries have to put their state-owned enterprises on sale which only multi-national companies from the rich countries can afford to buy.

Also, human security might even be used as an excuse to wage a war against poorer countries. It is argued that only powerful states, especially those from the West, can determine whose human rights justify departure from the principle of non-intervention - a resemblance of imperialism. For example, the US in the name of "just war" attacked Iraq. It was now discovered that there was no mass destructive weapons and many accused the US of being after Iraqi oil only <ref name="Koivusalo">Meri Koivusalo, “On Equity, Inequality and Global Institutions” , Global Social Policy, 6(2) (August 2006):221-225</ref. Since this episode, more and more people grew suspicious as the use of human security for rich countries to justify unconscionable war against weaker countries just for one's own interest. Some even accused "the Responsibility to Protect" is merely a euphemism for American hegemony<ref name="Macfarlane">S. Neil Macfarlane et al, “The Responsibility to Protect: is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol.25, No.5, p977–992, 2004</ref>.

Dissatisfaction towards the interventionist attitude of the rich countries has grown to a summit among rogue states like Iran and North Korea. This might lead to outbreak of conflicts or even violence. Tension has grown on the issue of disarmament. Terrorists organization led by Bin Laden often accused those countries of deliberately asserting their power and failing to abide by the principle of non-intervention.

Political infeasibility

Finally, the concept might be ineffective due to two reasons. First, it lacks political will. As states still are major players in global affairs, the unwillingness of states to give in their state sovereignty will make implementation of human security really difficult. A typical example is the failure of R2P. Without support from states, no issue can get to the top of the world's agenda. Since those who have the power to decide are the one whose interests will be potentially jeopardized by the human security paradigm, it is unlikely that this approach can be implemented.

Second, after the 9.11 incident, "national security" has regained its currency in the political world, due to the fear of terrorist attacks. Most political leaders would think that national security is the only way against terrorists. This can be seen from the fact that the world's total military expenditure has soared 18 percent in 2002 and 2003, with high-income countries accounting for 75% of this increase <ref name="Shahrbanou">Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, Human Security : The Seven Challenges of Operationalizing the Concept, "Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince", UNESCO, September 13 2005-09-14, Paris France</ref>. Many countries for fear of their security revive heavily their military protection against external threats. It has been argued that the rise of terrorism hinders the development of human security, since the main strategies to combat terrorism are diametrically different in national security approach and human security approach. Traditional national security advocates the use of traditional military forces to fight against terrorists; Human security advocates, on the other hand, suggest the use of a "psycho-political"<ref name="Mazarr">This term is borrowed from Michael Mazarr’s “Extremism, Terror and the Future of Conflict,” Policy Review, March 2006 (http://www.policyreview.org/000.mazazzz.html)</ref> strategy to win the hearts of those groups of people which now are supporting terrorists. Yet, this strategy has not been widely accepted by the public and implemented by western political leaders. Therefore, there remain doubts whether human security will flourish in face of terrorism.

Po1RqT <a href="http://vnxkfzmsynjz.com/">vnxkfzmsynjz</a>, [url=http://uqtnkwibucdo.com/]uqtnkwibucdo[/url], [link=http://qjxwmgknenvp.com/]qjxwmgknenvp[/link], http://jepkydthdmsk.com/

[編輯] 參考索引

Template:Reflist

[編輯] 外部連結

• 人類安全委員會(Commission on Human Security)
• 人類安全中心(Human Security Centre)
• 人類安全通道(Human Security Gateway)
• 人類安全網路(Human Security Network)
• 人類安全報告(Human Security Report)
• 加拿大人類安全網站(Canada's Human Security Website)
• UN OCHA - 聯合國人類安全(Human Security)
• [CERI Program for Peace and Human Security][[2]]
• UNICEF
• UNIFEM
• UNHCR
• Disarmament as Humanitarian Action
• Disarmament Insight initiativede:Menschliche Sicherheit

es:Seguridad humana ja:人間の安全保障 fi:Inhimillinen turvallisuus