プール学院大学研究紀要 第54号 2013年，63～76 Human Security and Globalization 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