1. Security and Human Security
I37011 GUO YUTING

2. Definition?
Security?
The condition of not being threatened, especially physically, psychologically, emotionally, or financially.
What does it mean to be secured?
In terms of national security: integrity of the borders and independent control of territory, economic wealth and military power, preservation of vital interests.
What makes a human secure?
Security synonyms: Wikisaurus: security – safety, protection, guarantee, surety

3. Changing definition of security
The security of states
A traditional definition of the state, often attributed to Max Weber, required as a necessary condition the effective monopoly on the use or licensing of violence within a given territory.
In the Westphalian world of (internally) strong states, there is less danger of internal conflict, and the international system is marked by conflicts among states rather than within them.
Since 1945, however, many of the most significant threats to state security have been internal, rather than external
The security of people
A new concept, at times given the name of ”security of people," has been suggested to express the need of individuals for safety in other arenas of basic need – access to clean food and water, environmental and energy security, freedom from economic exploitation, protection from arbitrary violence by the police, gangs, or domestic partners, etc.

4. Changing definition of security
Adjustment to systemic change
Many of the intrastate wars we have witnessed therefore concern questions of national liberation, unification, or secession – questions "of statehood and the nature of community within states."
when "warfare seemed to escape from political control; to cease indeed to be 'war' in the sense of politically-motivated use of force by generally recognized authorities, and to degenerate instead into universal, anarchic, and self-perpetuating violence.”
The growing reach and sophistication of international terrorism poses a further threat of intra-state violence that cannot easily be countered by traditional military organizations. Thus, some are turning to different approaches, such as "cooperative security," in order to achieve traditional security goals.

5. Changing definition of security
State security and human security are interlinked, however.
On a positive note, state security is a means of providing human security – or so it should be – whereas a high degree of human security may shed legitimacy on governments, regimes and states.
On a negative note, outwardly aggressive and inwardly repressive regimes can be major sources of human insecurity.
The security of people may be undermined by other states supporting oppressive regimes. Failed states – states that can no longer provide effective governance – invariably fail in human security.
Today, the conceptual challenge is to shape a security paradigm that captures the need to reach out in defense of people as well as states, and that can orchestrate and steer our endeavours in both directions.

6. Changing definition of security
Widening and consolidation to Human Security
Some scholars, have argued that the rethinking must go even further, including the ends of security policy as well.
The effort to broaden security planning to include "human security" changes the terms of debate.
It goes beyond arguing that non-traditional problems such as environmental degradation are likely to create a security threat (by encouraging conflict) to claiming that such degradation itself constitutes a security threat – a threat to the quality of life of those in a polluted environment.
The objective of human security is the safety and survival of people. A shorthand for the same is freedom from fear of physical violence. The individual is the unit of account. In operational terms it means the rule of law, public order and peaceful management of conflicts.
"true security cannot be achieved until hierarchical social relations and divisive boundary distinctions are recognized and substantially altered and until all individuals participate in providing for their own security.”

7. How to operationalize “security”?
The discussion is confined to three core elements on the policy agenda of human security.
The first concerns the importance of preventive action, problems that such actions encounter, and how they can be made more effective.
Security policy is first of all a matter of prevention.
This problem has a legal as well as a practical connotation.
Other than coercive action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, preventive action requires the consent or at least the acquiescence of the parties.
When governments decline offers of preventive diplomacy or any other kind of preventive action, they have international law and the Charter of the UN on their side.
Still, preventive action may have a chance if the issues are handled in a pragmatic manner.

8. How to operationalize “security”?
The second concerns the means of violence, mostly small arms and light weapons(criminality and armed conflict). This is the hard core of the human security agenda, yet with no claim to special significance.
Usually, violence is caused by a combination of many factors, so it makes little sense to depict one of them as being of prime importance.
The third concerns the need for joint efforts by governmental and non- governmental actors that can make a contribution.
Single initiatives by agencies acting alone may help, but are easily rendered futile.
The idea of peace operations for human security, launched in a preventive mode, is discussed in the spirit of concerted action by exporters and importers of arms and suppliers and recipients of development aid.

9. Question?
What other efforts can you think of could possible be doable to operationalize “security”? Feel free to present yourself! 
Is Human Security a paradigm shift or does it simply transform realist security concerns for a globalized era??

10. End.