The paper aims to present a probable humanitarian intervention as framework of human security. It objectifies humanitarian intervention as an element that will make human security autonomous but not separate nor fully independent from non-traditional security. Several literatures confuses the two terms as synonymous with each other, where others differentiated them explicitly. Thus the essay will address the ambiguity of both conceptions and discuss humanitarian intervention not as a different concept from human security but argues that it may be part and parcel of it, and in fact a possible framework to explain the paradigm of human security autonomous to non-traditional security. This contribution aspires for a sound, simple yet clear and unambiguous interpretation of human security to the evolving field of security especially as a sub-discipline of International Relations. In addition, it will also contend that there is a considerable middle way for both human security and non-traditional security in meeting a tangency point, and that is, a re-conceptualized version of human rights.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Keywords
3. Purpose and Objective
4. The Etymology of ‘Security’
5. Theorizing Security in International Relations
6. Redefining Security: The Post-Cold War Impact
7. Human Security or Non-Traditional Security?
8. The Humanitarian Intervention Framework
9. A Reconceptualized ‘Human Rights’
10. Conclusion
11. Recommendation
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this work is to resolve the conceptual confusion between human security and non-traditional security by establishing humanitarian intervention as an autonomous explanatory framework for human security.
- The evolution of the term 'security' in international relations.
- The ambiguity and overlapping definitions of human security versus non-traditional security.
- Humanitarian intervention as a mechanism for establishing the autonomy of human security.
- The role of a reconceptualized version of 'human rights' as a link between these security paradigms.
- The operationalization of security frameworks through case studies like Rwanda.
Excerpt from the Book
The Humanitarian Intervention Framework
The expression of humanitarian sentiments in world politics is a product of changing historical and social processes. World or domestic events alter or affect different sentiments that individuals experiences. It is left for the international community in addressing graved humanitarian crisis like what had happened in Rwanda (1994) and Sbrenica (1995). Presently, Sudan’s Darfur is also facing this kind of tragic and worst problem could ever happen in a state or community of peoples.
Traditionally, intervention has been defined as a forcible breach of sovereignty that interferes in state’s internal affairs. The legality of forcible humanitarian intervention is a matter of dispute between restrictionists and counter-restrictionists. The restrictionists perspective pointed out that: (1) States will not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. (2) States are not allowed to risk their soldiers’ lives on humanitarian crusades. (3) States will abuse a right of humanitarian intervention using it as a cloak to promote national interests. (4) States will apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively. (5) Disagreement on what principles should govern a right of humanitarian intervention. For the counter-restrictionists perspective raises significant questions like: (1) Protection of human rights. (2) A customary right of humanitarian intervention. (3) The moral choice of states to involve in humanitarian intervention. These questions were very controversial among lawyers of international law and raise the ire of the authority of the international judicial bodies, e.g., International Criminal Court (ICC).
Summary of Chapters
The Etymology of ‘Security’: This chapter traces the historical and academic evolution of the term 'security' from ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to modern realists.
Theorizing Security in International Relations: This section explores how security has been conceptualized within international relations, contrasting realist perspectives with liberal theories.
Redefining Security: The Post-Cold War Impact: This chapter examines how the shift after the Cold War led to the inclusion of new threats and the development of non-traditional security paradigms.
Human Security or Non-Traditional Security?: This section addresses the ambiguity between human security and non-traditional security, identifying why current definitions remain problematic.
The Humanitarian Intervention Framework: This chapter introduces humanitarian intervention as the essential framework for granting human security its own autonomous status.
A Reconceptualized ‘Human Rights’: This chapter proposes a new interpretation of basic rights as a connecting variable that bridges the gap between different security paradigms.
Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the argument that humanitarian intervention serves as a clear explanatory framework to distinguish human security from non-traditional security.
Keywords
Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security, Non-Traditional Security, Humanitarian Development, Human Rights, International Relations, Securitization, Sovereignty, Global Politics, Post-Cold War, Accountability, Protection of Civilians.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on distinguishing human security from non-traditional security to resolve conceptual ambiguity in the field of International Relations.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The study covers the evolution of security theories, the impact of the Cold War, the conceptualization of human rights, and the framework of humanitarian intervention.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to establish human security as an autonomous paradigm by using humanitarian intervention as its explanatory framework.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses an analytical approach to dissect existing security definitions and proposes an "arithmetic method" of adding or subtracting elements to refine conceptual clarity.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body treats the etymology of security, the rise of non-traditional security, the critiques of existing paradigms, and the operational application of the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) principle.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security, Non-Traditional Security, and Human Rights.
How does the author view the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
The author references the ICC's arrest warrant for the President of Sudan as a significant development in enforcing accountability for crimes against humanity.
How does the author interpret the case of Rwanda?
The Rwanda case is used to illustrate three stages of achieving normalcy: short-term peace-making, medium-term peace-building, and long-term peace-keeping.
What does the "middle way" refer to in this text?
The "middle way" refers to the concept of reconceptualized human rights, which links human security and non-traditional security despite their differences.
- Quote paper
- Nassef M. Adiong (Author), 2011, The Probabilty of Humanitarian Intervention as Framework for Human Security, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/179152
