Human Security and Globalization

プール学院大学研究紀要第54号 2013年，63～76

KAMEI Keiji

１．Introduction

䠍䠊䠍䚷㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㻌㻿㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㻌㼚㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼑㼙㼜㼕㼞㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㼞㼑㼍㼟㼛㼚㼕㼚㼓㼟 Human security is a normative, ethical movement and it also rests upon empirical reasoning. Firstly, it is normative in the sense that it argues that there is an ethical responsibility to reorient security around the individual in a redistributive sense, in the context of changes in political community and the emergence of transnational norms relating to human rights. Those who have the capacity to extend security to people seriously lacking in security have a basic human obligation to do so. Secondly, it rests upon empirical reasoning regarding the foundations of stability within and between states. There is a widely held understanding that human security deprivation, such as socioeconomic deprivation and exclusion, abuses of human rights, and widespread epidemiological threats such as AIDS, has a direct impact upon peace and stability within and between states. As such, it seems in the general interests to address human security needs and build capacity for others to address theirs, in line with the interconnected peace and stability（Newman, 2001）.

䠍䠊䠎䚷㼀㼞㼍㼐㼕㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘㻌㻿㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥㻌㼠㼛㻌㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㻌㻿㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥 International security has traditionally been deﬁned as a military defense of territory. The context is an anarchic state system whose chief characteristic is a ﬁerce competition for security based upon, primarily military, powers. In international relation theory, this is a structural realism, that is, though unit level changes may occur inside states, the system remains an anarchic and hierarchical arena that conditions or even determines the behaviors and attitudes of the units（Waltz, 2001）. National security is therefore the imperative of defending territory against and deterring foreign military threats. Attitude and institutions that privilege state politics above disease, hunger, or illiteracy, are still embedded in international relations and 64 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

foreign policy making. Yet for most people in the world, the much greater threats to security come from disease, hunger, environmental contamination, street crime, or even domestic

violence.1） And for others a greater threat may come from their own state itself, rather than from foreign adversary. These facts suggest that an international security traditionally deﬁned, such as territorial defense, does not necessarily correlate with human security, and that an overemphasis upon statist security can be to the detriment of human welfare needs. Although this is not to presume that human security is necessarily in conﬂict with state as an aggregation of capacity and resources and the central provider of security in the traditional security thinking, naïve cases which necessitate human security or human insecurity consideration has been gradually attracting greater attention.

䠍䠊䠏䚷㻵㼙㼜㼍㼏㼠㻌㼛㼒㻌㻳㼘㼛㼎㼍㼘㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚 Globalization is fundamental to this changing context. Globalization generally refers to the deregulation and marketization of national economies in the context of networks of international rules and standards that are codified and upheld, and even enforced, by regional and global organizations and regimes. The process of“complex interdependence” （Keohane and Nye, 1977）has arguably deepened, and with it the management of public goods such as trade and security. Most governments would accept, although in varying degrees, that the environment, the international economy, peace and security, population, the spread of disease, narcotics, terrorism, development, and civil conflicts are issues that demand serious policy consideration（Kamei, 2012）. This agenda overlaps with the emergence of Human Security concepts, and the broader alternative security discourse. This study focuses on the now controversially debated concept of Human Security in the subject of International Security Studies, and digs into how it has been formulated, and explores to where it has been heading while struggling to establish as a solid concept under the fast- moving international situations due to globalization.

２．Peace Studies and Human Security

䠎䠊䠍䚷㻺㼑㼓㼍㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻼㼛㼟㼕㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌㻼㼑㼍㼏㼑 Although the term human security has been widely known and utilized at least within the developmental circles such as International Non-Governmental Organizations（INGO）and various UN agencies today, the concept of human security has began to be recognized only a Human Security and Globalization 65 few decades ago. In the age of fiercely confronted Cold War, the Strategic Studies which particularly focusing on the arms reduction and detent between eastern and western countries has positioned in the center stage in the Security Studies. In the meantime, reﬂecting the disaster of WWII, researches focusing on the concept of‘peace’had been introduced into the area of International Security Studies and subsequently had been formulated as Peace Studies. Peace Studies originally launched as criticism of then-dominant Strategic Studies, such as peace research branch of arms control. Therefore, for meantime, it was still an approach to security that focused on security’s military dimensions and on external threats. Researchers belonged to this, envisaged bipolarity as a structure that could be eased but not eradicated. Other branches of Peace Studies, however, began to take a more radical approach, analytically as well as politically, arguing that governments on both sides of the Iron Curtain held their populations, and the planet, hostages to nuclear disaster. This constituted‘humanity’ or the individual as the referent object rather than the state, thereby invoking the long-standing Liberal tradition of critically scrutinizing the relationship between citizens and the institutions of authority and sovereignty.

As to the main research concept, Peace studies’researchers of the 1960’s and 1970s did not apply the concept of security in launching their critique of Strategic Studies but went through the oppositional concept of‘peace’. Peace researchers further divided‘peace’into positive and negative peace（Hansen and Buzan, 2009）. Negative peace was defined as the absence of war, large scale physical violence or personal violence and opened up a research agenda on military security. The research logic for this group was mainly driven by a desire to lower the statistical probability of nuclear weapons being used.2） This line of thinking has close connections to nuclear disarmament, and the NPT bargain in which stopping the spread of nuclear weapons should be accompanied by efforts to eliminate those already in existence. Positive peace studies, in contrast, had a multiple connotations. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was defined as the integration of individual security, but towards the end of 1960s, it was reformulated to include‘structural violence’, which emphasized social injustice and inequality.3）

䠎䠊䠎䚷㻼㼑㼍㼏㼑㻌㻿㼠㼡㼐㼕㼑㼟㻌㼍㼟㻌㼍㻌㼒㼛㼞㼑㼞㼡㼚㼚㼑㼞

The conceptualization of positive peace was worked through Galtung’s seminal article on structural violence, defined as‘the distance between the potential and the actual, and that 66 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

which impedes the decrease of this distance’（Galtung, 1969）. Structural violence referred to manifest injustices with physical material consequences, for instance hunger-related deaths in the Third World, but also to phenomena with a less immediate bodily impact such as illiteracy （Galtung, 1969）.

The referent object in Galtung’s conceptualization of structural violence was thus human collectivities, neither states nor individuals, and the primary concerns include economic and societal issues. During the 1980s there is a gradual shift from‘peace’to‘security’as the guiding concept of approaches critical of the Strategic Studies mainstream. Gleditsch notes in 1989 that‘most authors avoid the word peace, possibly because it sounds too grand and pretentious（Gleditsch, 1989）. At the close of the 1980s, as the Cold War confrontation began to cease, it seems that the status of‘security’has been upgraded from underdeveloped to the conceptual common ground between Strategic Studies and Peace Studies（Buzan, 1984）. Aside from academic debates, there were several movements paving the way to the formulation of human security, or individual security. The most successful one was the concept of‘common security’, or‘comprehensive security’in the Japanese case. The underlying assumption of Common Security was that‘the main threats to international security come not from individual states but from global problems shared by the entire international community such as nuclear war, the heavy economic burden of militarism and war, disparities in living standards within and among nations, and global environmental degradation’（Porter and Brown, 1991）. In retrospect, this concept, which rather focusing on the furtherance of human rights was the forerunner to the concept of Human Security.

䠎䠊䠏䚷㻵㼚㼠㼞㼛㼐㼡㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㻌㻿㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥 After many twists and turns described above, the term‘Human Security’had began to

appear in the policy statements published by the UN in the 1990s. In particular, the UNDP’s Human Development Report in 1994 describes Human Security explicitly as a condition where people given relief from the traumas that besiege human development. According to UNDP, Human Security means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease, and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life, whether in homes, in jobs, or in communities（UNDP 1994）. Although Human Security concept has come to be widely known through the above UNDP report, the concept itself is an underlying motivation for the Universal Declaration Human Security and Globalization 67 of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Ottawa Treaty, and the International Criminal Court. Human Security, therefore, serves as an umbrella norm for various treaties and conventions that aim to protect vulnerable people from persecuting actors, notably the state. In other words, human security, broadly conceived affects not just economic security but other areas of existence as well. This is why the first major references of human security in 1994 identified several areas of concern. Human security means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease, and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of dairy life, whether in homes, in jobs, or in communities. Therefore, ensuring human security requires a seven-pronged approach to address economic, food, health, environment, personal, community, and political security with concrete targeting to be achieved in each category（UNDP, 1994）. The concept of human security also serves to support some countries’political interests. Sukhre（2004）suggests, for instance, that Canada and Norway were strong advocates of human security, not least because the concept could assist their lobbying efforts during the 1990s to gain a seat as the non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.4）

３．Globalization’s Security Implications

After formal introduction into the arena of International Security Studies, Human Security has experienced rather turbulent time in order to be accepted as a useful and legitimized concept. Recent international circumstances aﬀected by the termination of cold war and the deepening of globalization have made a profound implications on the subsequent positioning of the concept of Human Security.

䠏䠊䠍䚷㻳㼘㼛㼎㼍㼘㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼍㼟㻌㼍㻌㻯㼍㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㻌㻵㼚㼟㼑㼏㼡㼞㼕㼠㼥 Globalization is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. For instance, information technologies, along with a variety of other technologies, are expanding rapidly and spreading widely. Trade is expanding globally, as is the ﬂow of private capital and investment. Interdependencies are growing in all aspects of our lives. These developments create real possibilities to achieve economic prosperity, spread political freedom and promote peace. Yet they are also producing powerful forces of social fragmentation, creating critical vulnerabilities, and sowing the seeds of violence and conﬂict. Economic crisis extend across state borders and are producing hardships. 68 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

All of these are aspects of what is commonly referred to as globalization, and all have important security implications（Kamei, 2012）. Most dangerously, a variety of threats have become global in scope and more serious in their effects as a result of the spread of knowledge, the dispersion of advanced technologies, and the movements of people. These same developments, combined with expanding global economic interactions, contributed to some of the problems and resentments that lie at the root of these security threats. Because, the global spread of ideas and technologies is unquestionably making it easier for states, and even disaffected groups, to develop the most-dangerous weapons. The potentially destructive capabilities of weapons of mass destruction（WMD）in the hand of enemy states and terrorists clearly suggest the need for a preventive strategy. When these threats are directed to the other targeting states, the case then becomes an issue of national security though how to respond to these threats most effectively has been seriously argued continuously. When, however, the threats are directed to the own nationalities, very often toward ethnic and/or religious minorities, the state itself turn out to be the menace itself instead of the protecting guardians originally designed. In this case, conventional concept of national security does not work for the security of people living inside the state. Threatened people usually do not have enough power to resist the state’s formal military apparatus, and are destined to be suffering as shown in the past histories. Unlike national security, however, human security focuses on the individual human level, even if this in tension with state sovereignty. The assertive focus of human security claims that the security of the state, traditionally conceived, does not necessarily ensure the security of its citizens（Newman, 2001）. According to this reasoning, the inescapable conclusion is that an action must be taken to alleviate gross human suffering, even if this sometimes challenges upon sovereign right of state power. Thus, some kind of actions such as international intervention and other forms of coercion should be required for the human security advocates（Wheeler, 2000）. Yet, the question of what actors should intervene in what circumstances defies political consensus, let alone any form of institutional or legal bases has been largely unsettled. When seen under a human security reasoning the challenge is to develop a consistent, consensus- based mechanism that governs where, when, and how to intervene in situations of great human suffering After experiencing several difficulties, two kinds of policy options have appeared to be a candidate for an appropriate framework. One is a humanitarian intervention and the other one Human Security and Globalization 69

is a responsibility to protect.

䠏䠊䠎䚷㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㼕㼠㼍㼞㼕㼍㼚㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼢㼑㼚㼠㼕㼛㼚 Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by external actors for humanitarian purposes, usually against the wishes of the host government. Associated with liberalism and cosmopolitanism, the case for intervention is typically premised on the idea that external actors have a duty as well as a right to intervene to halt genocide and mass atrocities. For advocates of this policy, the rights that sovereign enjoy

are conditional on the fulﬁllment of the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Therefore, when states fail in their duties towards their citizens, they lose their sovereign right to non- interference. There are a variety of ways of arriving at this conclusion. For instance, liberal advocates （Weiss, 2007）draw on the work of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant to insist that all individuals have certain fundamental rights that deserve protection. Political leaders who adopt

this position often argue that today’s globalized world is so integrated that massive human right violations in one part of the world have an eﬀect on every other part. This social connectedness, they argue, creates moral obligation. The leading proponent of this view was former British PM Tony Blair. Blair insisted that globalization was changing the world in ways that rendered traditional views of sovereign state anachronistic when NATO carried out air strike in Serbia for the name of humanitarian intervention in 1999. Not every country, however, agrees with any kind of humanitarian intervention. Opponents of humanitarian intervention maintain that international peace and security requires something approximating an absolute ban on the use of force outside the two

exceptions set out by the UN（Welsh, 2004）.5 Starting point for this position is the assumption that international society comprises a large number of diverse communities, each with diﬀerent ideas about the best way to live. In short, the world is made up of a variety of countries.

According to this view, international security is based on the rules, for instance, UN Charter’s rules on the use of force among them that permit the peaceful coexistence of these very diﬀerent types of states and societies. What is more, a right of humanitarian intervention would open the door to potential abuse. Historically, states have shown a distinct predilection toward‘abusing’ humanitarian justiﬁcation to legitimize wars that were anything but humanitarian in nature as Hitler did. 70 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

䠏䠊䠎䚷㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼕㼎㼕㼘㼕㼠㼥㻌㼠㼛㻌㻼㼞㼛㼠㼑㼏㼠 Contemplating the above-mentioned deficiencies and with other political concerns, more restricted idea of intervention to ameliorate the vast human insecurity, so called‘Responsibility to Protect（R2P）’has gradually gained a ground within several international organizations.

Historically, faced with NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in the late 1990s, then UN Secretary- General Annan pointed three critical concerns for the legitimization of many kinds of foreign intervention（Evans, 2008）. First, intervention should be understood broadly to cover measures short of armed force that could be used to prevent and halt humanitarian emergencies. Second, sovereignty alone was not the principal barrier to effective action to protect human rights. Just as significant, Annan argued, was the way in which member states defined their national interests. Third, international society should make a long-term commitment to rebuild states and societies once a conflict is over. In this way, Annan pointed toward a new way of thinking about sovereignty as responsibility.

Responding to Annan’s call, the Canadian government created the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty（ICISS）to develop a way of reconciling sovereignty and

human right. The Commission’s report, released in late 2001, was premised on the notion that, when states are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens from grave harm, the principle of non-interference‘yields to the responsibility to protect’（ICISS, 2001）. The concept of R2P that ICISS put forward was intended as a way of escaping the logic of intervention versus sovereignty by focusing not on what interveners were entitled to do with a right to intervention, but on what was necessary to protect civilians threatened by genocide and mass atrocities.6）

After several diﬃcult negotiations, all UN Member States agreed to make a commitment in 2005 that they have a responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and that the international community has a duty to take timely and decisive action in situations where the state manifestly fails in its responsibility （Bellamy, 2009）.

４．Human Security and Basic Human Needs

As the globalization increases the level of prosperity, so the poverty is also becoming globalized. The developing nations are rather destined to be the receiving end of economic Human Security and Globalization 71

models emanating from industrialized states and international financial institutions. In other words, the impact of economic globalization on many developing economies has often resulted in limited beneﬁts to the majority of individuals, groups, and society（Williams, 1997）. Thus the outcome is very slow or negative growth rates, markedly skewed distribution of income, and widespread poverty. In other words, the fruits these developments generates can oﬀer serve to disguise the very real social and economic inequalities that are not merely leftovers from the past, but the results of the globalization process. Most obviously, global welfare inequalities have spread alongside the noted advancements in technological developments and rapid expansion of trade and investment. This trend can be seen in the gap in income and investment patterns. For instance, the richest 20

percent of the world’s population spent more than 75 percent of the world total, while the poorest 20 percent spent less than 2 percent, or in another way, the gap between the richest and the poorest 20 percent of the world had increased and widens every day（World Bank, 2008）. The statistics shows a bleak picture for global inequalities, particularly for the worst

aﬀected region like Africa. With a ﬁfth of the world’s population, Africa is a home to one in three poor persons live in the world, and four of every ten inhabitants live in what the World

Bank classifies as a‘condition of absolute poverty’7）. Currently, a number of developing countries have experienced improved economic growth, but lacked the policies and the will to redistribute the increased wealth, and the inequalities is therefore likely to increase rather than diminish. As the links with the global economy, and the dependence on external resources continues to increase, commodity prices continue to ﬂuctuate whilst the overall terms of trade are unfavorable to the people living in the developing countries. Faced with the spread or globalization of human insecurity, about 1.4 billion people deﬁned by the World Bank as the poorest has been entrapped in a poverty cycle, various UN organizotions launched several development programs such as Millennium Development Goals （MDGs）and Education for All（EFA）. For instance, MDGs sets a target that by 2015 children everywhere, girls as well as boys, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling （Kamei, 2013）. However, achieving universal primary education is unlikely to be achieved by 2015 in most of the sub-saharan African countries, especially for the poorest countries with the large rural population. Being out of school, or even being short of primary school completion,

constitutes vulnerability for every subsequent phases of one’s life cycle and eventually ends up with human insecurity. 72 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

５．Summary

Similar to the Peace Studies where peace had been divided into negative and positive, Human Security also could be divided into two categories, one with focus on military aspects such as Humanitarian intervention and R2P, and the other with focus on economic and societal aspects such as developmental basic human needs approach. Yet, as seen, both have been continuously struggling to be internationally accepted academically and politically as a legitimate concept.8）

For some the securitization of issues related to livelihoods is quite problematic, not least because it risks mixing up the quite diﬀerent agendas of international security, on the one hand, and social security and civil liberties, on the other. Buzan & Hansen（2009）, for example, readily accepts the case for studying the interplay between the international and domestic security agendas, but cautions against a reductionist approach that prioritizes the individual security above the collective goods. Paris（2001）also pursues this theme further, noting that‘existing definitions of human security tend to be extraordinarily expansive and vague, encompassing everything from physical security to psychological well-being’. Thus, he argues, Human Security provides policy circles, and academics with little sense of what is to be studied. Advocates of human security（Newman, 2001）replies that in reality the critics of human security have missed a fundamental point about the utility value of the concept. For them, the very breadth and inclusiveness of the concepts serves a political function that perhaps explains the enthusiasm with which it has been embraced by practitioners of development. Thus, far from being a reductionist concept, they insist, that human security should be conceived to be encompassing and empowering the hopes and aspirations of a group people such as development practitioners, NGO’s, and donor organizations. As the fact that the language of human capital has been so far mostly appeared in a variety of reports from UN organization and from developed countries, indicates that the political utility of the concept cannot be denied. In contrast, however, it still seems quite diﬃcult to overcome an academic criticism that the concept of Human Security is too broad due to the ambiguity of border line of human security inherited in the concept.

CdiZh

１） According to UNICEF report（2008）, about 1,000,000,000 children under 5 years olds die every year due to malnutrition and illness caused by the absolute poverty. Human Security and Globalization 73

２） Negative Peace researchers such as Boulding（1978）insisted that the military threat should be considered with urgency because nuclear weapons could destroy entire humankind. ３） Feminist Security Studies, Linguistic approaches and Post-structuralism have been separated from the positive peace study groups due to the diﬀerences how reality should be understood and which policies should be adopted（Buzan & Hansen, 2009）４） Japan also has established so-called‘Human Security Funds’to provide financial assistances to the development project particularly focusing on the Human Security issues. On the other hand, Japan has little involvement in a debate on R2P due to the Constitutional constraints so far. ５） Two exceptions set out by the UN are the case of UN Charters-Security Council authorization（UN Chapter VII）and the case of Self-defense（UN Article 51）. ６） ICISS also argued that the R2P was about much more than just military intervention, in other words, that the international society has responsibility to be involved in the rebuilding affected societies afterwards（ICISS, 2001）. ７） Line of absolute poverty set out by the World Bank is 1.25 US$ per day for daily allowance. ８） Besides, the war on terror after 9.11 has made a situation rather complicated, which got Human Security’s quest even harder, particularly for budgetary.

GZ[ZgZcXZh

１．Bellamy, A. J.（2009）, R P T G E E G M A , Cambridge: Policy Press. ２．Boulding, K. E.（1978）,‘Future Directions in Conﬂict and Peace Studies,’J C] R , 22/2, 342－354. ３．Buzan, B.（2007）, P S & F A A S S P C W E , ECPR Press: Colchester UK. ４．Buzan, B. & Hansen, L.（2009）, T I S S , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK. ５．Copeland, D.（1996）,‘Economic interdependence and war; a theory of trade expectations’, I S , 20/4, 5－41. ６．Evans, G.（2008）, T R P E M A C O F A , Washington: Brookings institution. ７．Galtung, J.（1969）,‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’, J P R , 6 : 3, 167－191. ８．Gleditsch, N.P.,（1989）,‘Focus On: Journal of Peace Research’, J P R , 14 : 3, 239－259. ９．ICISS（2001）, T R P , Ottawa: IDRC 10．Kamei, K.（2012）,‘Globalization and Security: An Evolution of Economic Security’, J P G U , 52, 39－50. 11．Kamei, K.（2013）,‘Educational Assistance policy to the Developing Countries: Focusing on recent World Bank Policies’, J P G U , 53, 1－14. 12．Kenny, M.（2003）,‘From Pablo to Osama: Counter-Terrorism Lessons from the War on Drugs’, S , 45 : 3, 187－206. 13．Keohane, R.O., and Nye, J.S.（1977）, P I , Boston: Little Brown. 14．Kratochwil, F.,（1989）, R N D C P L R I R D A , Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 74 プール学院大学研究紀要第54号

15．Newman, E.（2001）,‘Human Security and Constructivism’, I S P , 2, 239－251. 16．Paris, R.（2001）,‘Human Security: Paradigm shift or Hot Air?’, I S , 26 : 2, 87－102. 17．Porter, G. and Brown, J.W.（1991）, G E P , Boulder: Westview Press. 18．Suhrke, A（2004）,‘A Stalled Initiative’, S D , 35 : 3, 365. 19．UNICEF（2008）, T S W S C 2008, New York: UNICEF 20．UNDP（1994）, H D R 1994, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21．UNDP（2008）, M G T W P , London: Earthscan. 22．Waltz, K.N.（1979）, T I P , NY: McGraw. 23．Waltz, K.N.（2001）, M S W , NY: Columbia University Press. 24．Weiss,T.G.（2007）, H I I A , Cambridge: Polity Press. 25．Welsh, J.（2004）H I I R , Oxford: Oxford University Press. 26．Wheeler, N.J.（2000）S S H I I S , Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27．William, M.C.（1997）,‘The institutions of Security: Elements of a Theory of Security Organizations’, C C] , 32 : 3, 287－307. 28．World Bank（2003）, A U P E 2015 A C E C , Washington: World Bank. 29．World Bank（2008）, W D I V W P P P , Washington: World Bank. 30．World Bank（2011）, L A W B G E S 2010, Washington: World Bank. Human Security and Globalization 75

（ABSTRACT）

Human Security and Globalization

KAMEI Keiji

Human Security as a new concept in International Security Studies has its root in Peace Studies, particularly in the concept of positive peace. After being formally introduced in the

UNDP’s human development report in 1994, human security has gradually gained ground both in the area of academics and policy formation for development. Along with this, the globalization process has brought wide-ranging impact on security agendas, such as the proliferation of WMD and terrorism activities, and huge economic disparity. Faced with the reality that traditional security thinking such as national security cannot cope with these diﬃculties, reasoning of human security has been gradually applied to legitimize humanitarian intervention and the actions for the responsibility to protect, and to formulate the developmental assistance policy towards developing countries. Yet, the concept of human security is still struggling to establish itself as a solid research concept mainly due to the ambiguity of its borders.