Human Security and the New Global Threats: Discourse, Taxonomy and Implications
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12290 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Author | Rogelio Madrueño‐Aguilar |
Human Security and the New Global Threats:
Discourse, Taxonomy and Implications
Rogelio Madrue~
no-Aguilar
Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research, University of G€
ottingen
Abstract
The metamorphosis of human security has become a topic of major importance in the context of globalisation. While its exter-
nal appearance contains central tenets of the conception of security in the 20th century, human security has become increas-
ingly sensitive to characteristics which are indissoluble from the loss of state capacity and legitimacy regarding the use of
violence. These features have a direct influence on the contemporary conception of global threats. This article provides an in-
depth examination of the discursive logic behind the notion of human security from the United Nations perspective, as well
as how this connects with the recent characterisation of new global threats. Likewise, it has carried out an empirical estima-
tion by using multivariate statistical techniques in the form of a nonhierarchical cluster analysis. This enables us to establish a
multidimensional taxonomy of developed and developing countries that could help us to better understand the new discur-
sive framework of global threats and human security. Finally, some implications of these findings for the current debate on
country classifications are discussed.
Policy Implications
•While there is an emergence of a general consensus on the notion of global risks, there has yet to be a concerted effort
to set up reliable classification of countries based on their level of exposure to these threats.
•Specialists in security and development need timely access to complementary information (including taxonomies for
development) that contributes to effective decision-making regarding sustainable human development.
1. The construction of human security
After two decades of discussion, the Secretary-General of
the United Nations (UN) through its High High-Level
Panel on the post2015 development agenda has marked an
important discursive turning point regarding security and
development. The organisation reflected a general consen-
sus among policy makers that shifts had taken place in their
understanding of the role of security for development. The
gradual shift in security discourses at the UN went hand-in-
hand with the transformation of research interests on pro-
cesses of securitisation (C.A.S.E. Collective, 2006; Huysmans,
2006; Weaver, 2004).
The result of that shift in approach was the outcome of a
longer-term process, in which the conventional narrative of
development has benefited from an upward harmonisation
of the notions of human security and human development
within the UN, despite certain shortcomings. The recent
trend has become a central and successful pillar in discur-
sive coherence of development, which indeed sets the tone
for the post2015 sustainable development agenda. Likewise,
it has also been effective in revitalising the meaning of
development.
It must be clear though, that while progress has been
made both in political discourse content and institutionally,
beyond the UN family, there is no universal consensus on
the way forward for development discourse. In fact, we are
at a historic turning point at which not only parts of the
developing but also the developed world are facing growing
constraints on potential output or in a worrying phase of
structural stagnation (FMI, 2015). These could have signifi-
cant repercussions on the understanding of development.
Broadly speaking, a wide range of discursive horizons can
be grouped into two types of cases: those relating to sus-
tainable development and those relating to growing vulner-
abilities and risks. The two strands are supplemented by
strong linkages and interactions among them, which are
well exemplified by the identification of ‘clusters of threats
with which the world must be concerned’, within the frame-
work of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
Change (HPTCC). The risk dimension and the notion of vul-
nerability have become a constitutive part of the new dis-
cursive phenomenon on human security, and it has
developed its own dynamic. Over the last two decades, the
new language has been welcomed by the international
community through a reconceptualisation of the meaning of
security and development in scientific, political, and private
areas, given its special emphasis on concepts such as
threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks, as stated by
G€
unter Brauch (2011).
©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2016) 7:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12290
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 2 . May 2016
156
Research Article
The debate which has been developing recently has
thrown up a key issue: there is an imperative need to
restore the emblematic value of the international promotion
of individual security. However, it means that rebuilding the
foundations of human security and national development
would not be possible given the context of complicated
combinations of hazards and vulnerabilities throughout a
large part of the world (Alonso et al., 2014; Stiglitz & Kaldor,
2013; Hobsbawn, 2007). On the face of it, global solutions
seem to be the only comprehensive way able to provide a
system of governance in which the development and secu-
rity of humankind would be guaranteed (Weiss & Thakur,
2010; UNIHP, 2009; Gilpin, 2001).
This is by no means something alien to political discourse
and it is essential for the understanding of development and
human security discourses. In that regard, their implementa-
tion have now reached a fork in the road, given the fact that
the postwar international order remains to a large extent
within the logic of national agreements, at the expense of
regional or global frameworks (Rodrik, 2011; Sanahuja, 2004).
However, the range of instruments for responding to the
increasing complexity of global threats has proved to be
insufficient to reverse the root causes of these trends.
The key issue here is how the discussion on new global
threats might affect development patterns: discursively and
institutionally. In what follows, the article raises the discur-
sive forces that shape the notions of human security and
global threats. Likewise, it seeks to visualise a new phe-
nomenon by introducing a classification or multidimensional
taxonomy of developed and developing countries regarding
human security based on the identification of six clusters of
global threats provided by the UN. The central objective is
not only to flesh out the new discursive construction of
human security and global threats, but also to raise interna-
tional attention on the issue of global threats from a quasi-
cartographic representation, which may be useful for analyti-
cal purposes in the field of international relations. Reasons
for this could include: lack of comprehensive representation
on this issue that could provide insights into the regional
and bilateral relations among nations. (i.e. foreign policies
and foreign aid strategies). More importantly, it seeks to pro-
voke further research and discussion about the debate on
country classifications, particularly regarding its capacity to
accurately portray ‘the reality of development’.
Our country classification system is obtained by applying
the multivariate statistical technique: the k-means approach
to cluster analysis, which is a nonhierarchical clustering
method. The aim is to provide a complementary tool for
visualising global human security in the context of the pro-
liferation of country rankings based on hierarchical cluster-
ing methods. The last section discusses some considerations
on the matter with a view to contributing to the debates on
global threats and country classifications.
2. State of the art
After the end of the Cold War, global economic develop-
ment has increasingly been understood by policy makers in
terms of human development (UN, 2010; UN, 2000). The
commonly adopted approach has been associated with an
agenda to ‘ensure security through early prevention’, partic-
ularly through the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P)
(UNDP, 1994, p. 22; Kaldor, 2007). The R2P is, however, only
one dimension of human security, which has become a con-
troversial issue for global development (Krause, 2013; Duf-
feld, 2005; UN, 2009). To a large extent, R2P was central in
the formulation of the security agenda over the last two
decades (Cohen, 2012; MacFarlane & Khong, 2006). However,
as a principle guiding human security, it has not been cor-
rectly implemented despite endorsement by the UN mem-
bers in 2005. The reason is that it has proven to be
complicated in practice, partly because it opened the door
to institutional distortions and new forms of conflict and
tensions due to its potential to threaten the territorial sover-
eignty of states. The solution calls for measures that are
essential to disentangle the effects of the R2P from the glo-
bal development agenda, as stated by the UN Secretary
General, Ban Ki-moon.
1
Attempts to move towards a new conception of security
have overall been welcomed; in part due to the initial
euphoria of the end of the Cold War (Jolly, 2014). Redefining
security has not only meant a real step change in terms of
discursive language but also the emergence of the institu-
tional architecture that has made it possible to implement a
number of initiatives of human security policy at the inter-
national level. Therefore, within the UN a new institutional
framework to support the implementation of human secu-
rity is being put in place. Other aspects that were a critical
part of the debate on national security during the postCold
War period, such as the individual human being, the
international system, the societal or the environmental sec-
tors became key components of the notion of human secu-
rity (i.e. Brandt Commission). The trend was further
intensified in the context of the Asian financial crisis (Buzan,
1984; MacFarlane & Khong, 2006).
Recent global, national and regional development agen-
das have sought to reconcile the idea of human develop-
ment with the objectives of global peace and security.
However, there is a great deal of criticism among some
authors who complain about the inadequacy and the vague-
ness of the concept of human security.
2
Special concern has
been expressed about the fact that it attempts to patholo-
gise developing countries (Eldering, 2010; Johns, 2014).
Nonetheless, it is undeniable that there has occurred
since 2005 a considerable stride in moving towards greater
harmony between human security and human development.
The provision of human security as an operational tool is
central to the overall framework of international collabora-
tion at the national, regional and international levels (UN,
2013). Consequently, it is now part of ‘a dynamic and practi-
cal policy framework for addressing widespread and cross-
cutting threats’, which has provided its own methodology to
implement and evaluate security programmes.
3
The new
institutional framework has facilitated the integration of
human security into the contemporary multidimensional
vision of human development, which involves, inter alia,
Global Policy (2016) 7:2 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Human security and the new global threats 157
To continue reading
Request your trial