Human security's future in regional cooperation and governance?

Abstract

Political elites in East Asia tend to view the concept of human security with scepticism. On the one hand, broader notions of security are acknowledged. However, traditional views on sovereignty and deeply embedded norms relating to non-intervention and consensus politics have fostered conservative views towards parts of the human security agenda that challenge state/elite perspectives. This article identifies and explores this tension, and comments on the potential for different ‘strands’ of human security to inform future regional cooperation and dialogue, and concludes that human security's breadth continues to fuel an endless debate about its clarity and utility in East Asia. Such confusion is a challenge for its future relevance in the region, both as a conceptual tool and as a policy agenda.

Keywords:

• Association of Southeast Asian Nations
• East Asia
• human security
• responsibility to protect

Notes

1. The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, Michael Heazle, Alex Bellamy, Phil Orchard and members of the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect for their comments on previous drafts of this article. The views contained within and any omissions are entirely my own.

2. For further discussion about the definitions of human security, see Martin and Owen (2010), Paris (2001) and UNDP (1994).

3. For a useful discussion on this, see Akaha (2004: 307–8).

4. A number of very useful literature reviews and critiques exist elsewhere: see Acharya (2001; 2003), Chandler (2008), Owen (2008) and Paris (2001). Some good recent histories of human security include: MacFarlane and Khong (2006), Martin and Owen (2010), and UNTFHS (2009).

5. For more extensive reviews of Japanese policy on human security, see CHS (2003), Ho (2008) and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website at <http://www.mofa.go.jp>.

6. Indeed, the statement describes how NTS issues are causality, related to increasing uncertainty and instability, noting they ‘have become important factors of uncertainty affecting regional and international security and are posing new challenges to regional and international peace and stability’ (ASEAN 2002). The document does not refer to humans or citizens, and focuses on building existing capacities and dialogue in areas of mutual concern.

7. One such example was the Ford Foundation's program to promote NTS in East Asia. Discussions focused on the challenges of breaking down military-related, ‘hard’ notions of security that were overwhelmingly dominated by what threatened the state in traditional ways (see Basrur 2001; Caballero-Anthony et al. 2007; Chari 2001; Curley and Wong 2008; Khan 2001; Tan and Boutin 2001).

8. For a comprehensive list of the four ‘clusters of activity’ outlined in the World Summit's outcome document for regional arrangements and RtoP, see CSCAP Study Group on RtoP (2010: 2).

9. See the APRTP website at <http://www.r2pasiapacific.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=95>.

10. For further discussion of this regime typology, see Diamond (2008) and Emmerson's (2008: 83) application to South-East Asia.

11. For a more detailed discussion about the promotion of RtoP principles in South-East Asia, see APCRTP (2009) and Morada (2009).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Melissa Curley

Melissa Curley is a Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland. Her research and teaching interests include East Asian regional security and civil society and democratisation in South-East Asia