Canada's Human Security Agenda
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200506000411 |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon
Canada’s human
security agenda
Walking the talk?
| International Journal | Autumn 2005 | 1067 |
INTRODUCTION
Human security is a central pillar of Canadian foreign policy; hence it is
important to determine the government’s efficacy in this area. This paper
assesses the extent to which Canada is exercising effective leadership in sup-
port of two key human security objectives: promoting the report of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS),
“The responsibility to protect,” and supporting the International Criminal
Court (ICC). The Canadian government’s record of leadership is assessed in
terms of its own objectives.1
Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon is a professor of international relations and former chair of the
department of political science at the University of Western Ontario.
1 It is beyond the scope of the article to analyze the broader critiques of the human security
agenda and program. They have been criticized for being too wide-ranging, reflecting inappro-
priate priorities, and diverting attention from other foreign policy issues of importance. Such cri-
tiques are discussed in Ann Denholm Crosby, “Myths of Canada’s human security pursuits:
Talesof tool boxes, toy chests, and tickle trunks,” in Claire Turenne Sjolander, Heather A. Smith,
and Deborah Stienstra, eds.,
Feminist Perspectives on Canadian Foreign Policy
(Don Mills, ON:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 90-107; Greg Donaghy, “All God’s children: Lloyd Axworthy,
human security and Canadian foreign policy, 1996-2000,”
Canadian Foreign Policy
10 (winter
2003): 39-57; Norman Hillmer and Adam Chapnick, “The Axworthy revolution,” in Fen Osler
Hampson, Norman Hillmer, and Maureen Appel Molot, eds.,
Canada Among Nations 2001:
The Axworthy Legacy
(Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2001), 65-88; George MacLean,
| Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon |
| 1068 | International Journal | Autumn 2005 |
Three types of leadership are explored: intellectual, entrepreneurial, and
implementation leadership.2Intellectual leadership involves offering fresh
ideas, new perspectives, and creative ways of conceptualizing problems.
Entrepreneurial leadership entails forming like-minded coalitions, engi-
neering agreements, and facilitating the negotiation of compromise solu-
tions. Implementation leadership involves providing the resources to trans-
late policy positions into practice and leading by example at the implemen-
tation stage—what is often referred to as “walking the talk.”
The three forms of leadership are interrelated. Successful intellectual
leadership is relatively rare in international relations but it can be ground-
breaking when it does occur. Yet intellectual leadership depends heavily on
entrepreneurial leadership to sell its creative ideas. Canada has a reputation
for exercising skilful entrepreneurial leadership to create international
norms and facilitate international agreements, but these instruments are
only useful if they are translated into concrete actions; hence implementa-
tion leadership is also required. There are a variety of ways in which imple-
mentation leadership can be exercised: setting an example for others to fol-
low; ensuring that one’s own legislation is compatible with international
obligations; allocating the resources necessary to fulfil one’s own commit-
ments; and providing other states with the expertise and tangible resources
to enable them to meet their international responsibilities.
The article begins by identifying Canada’s objectives apropos therespon-
sibilityto protect and the International Criminal Courtso as to have a basis for
evaluatingsuccess. It then compares and contrasts the extentto which Canada
has exercisedeffective intellectual, entrepreneurial,and implementation lead-
ership in eachof the two cases. It concludesthat Canada did not demonstrate
intellectual leadership in either case. It has, however, consistently shown
strong entrepreneurialleadership. There havebeen few opportunities toexer-
cise implementationleadership aproposthe responsibilityto protect becauseit
is still at stageof norm creation. Although the International CriminalCourt is
“Building a legacy or bucking tradition? Evaluating Canada’s human security initiative in an era
of globalization,”
Canadian Foreign Policy
9 (winter 2002): 65-83; and Dean Oliver and Fen
Olser Hampson, “Pulpit diplomacy: A critical assessment of the Axworthy doctrine,”
International Journal
53 (summer 1997): 379-407.
2 The terms “intellectual leadership” and “entrepreneurial leadership” are drawn from Oran
Young’sseminal work, “Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of insti-
tutions in international society,”
International Organization
45, no. 3 (1991): 281-308.
To continue reading
Request your trial