Human Security and State Sovereignty. Is human security compatible with the notion of state sovereignty? Human Security: Reference object- never forget that the referent object is the individual. Narrow/broad realms of human security= ‘fear’ versus ‘want’. Fear= conflict and violence. Want= disease, poverty, development, everything else. There are worries that ‘Want’ risks making everything else into a security issue. But there are undoubtedly a broad range of threats that are human security. Sovereignty: Monopoly on the legitimate use of force (in a given area). A state has the right to do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the country. Flow-over from Westphalian conception of state- that the government inside the state had control over the state, and some religious or supra-state entity had no right to interfere in the affairs of another state. Where does Human Security and Sovereignty cross over? A fundamental incompatibility- Human Security is the right to protect individuals. Sovereignty is the right of a state to do whatever it wants in the realm of the state, and enforce the security of its own state. We see these two things grind especially in regards to the Responsibility to Protect. Sovereignty today is not sovereignty as it was in 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia)- a globalised world, UN, EU, systems of interdependence, sees a change in sovereignty. Sovereignty has shifted from a state having the ‘right’ to do things, to ‘responsible sovereignty’- a state now has an obligation and responsibility to its population, rather than the right to do things to its citizens. When a country fails to uphold the expectation of protecting the individual what can one do? How does a state consider ‘human rights’ and how does it enact on those? You can pay lip service to human rights without actually practicing them. It is best not to use case studies. Make points then use examples to illustrate those points.
Posted on: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:27:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015