| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In current discussions, many commentators express a fear that 'broad' human security approaches are being sidelined by the rise of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) and the 'narrow' focus on military intervention. An alternative reading is sketched out here, which suggests that debates over 'narrow' or 'broad' human security frameworks have undertheorized the discursive paradigm at the heart of human security. This paradigm is drawn out in terms of the juxtaposition of preventive human security practices of resilience, working upon the empowerment of the vulnerable, and the interventionist security practices of liberal internationalism, working upon the protection of victims. It is suggested that human security can be conceptually analysed in terms of post-intervention, as a shift away from liberal internationalist claims of Western securing or sovereign agency and towards a concern with facilitating or developing the self-securing agency - resilience - of those held to be the most vulnerable. This approach takes us beyond the focus on the technical means of intervention - whether coercive force is deployed or not - and allows us to see how international intervention, including under the R2P, increasingly operates under the paradigm of resilience and human security, thereby evading many of the problems confronted by liberal framings of intervention.
|