The paper aims to present a probable humanitarian intervention as framework of human security. It objectifies humanitarian intervention as an element that will make human security autonomous but not separate nor fully independent from non-traditional security. Several literatures confuses the two terms as synonymous with each other, where others differentiated them explicitly. Thus the essay will address the ambiguity of both conceptions and discuss humanitarian intervention not as a different concept from human security but argues that it may be part and parcel of it, and in fact a possible framework to explain the paradigm of human security autonomous to non-traditional security. This contribution aspires for a sound, simple yet clear and unambiguous interpretation of human security to the evolving field of security especially as a sub-discipline of International Relations. In addition, it will also contend that there is a considerable middle way for both human security and non-traditional security in meeting a tangency point, and that is, a re-conceptualized version of human rights.
Why there’s a need to separate human security from non-traditional security? In this line of inquiry, we need to consider the aim of this paper as mentioned above, thus question should also fit to the construction of essay. The proponent wants to emphasize that he is not separating human security from non-traditional security because in his second hypothesis he is also interested in looking for a middle way for both conceived ideas. This is not to separate them but to make the conception of human security autonomous from the conception of non-traditional security. Related literatures have confused both conceptions and increased its ambiguity which directed some scholars and practitioners to formulate their own interpretations of human security and non-traditional security. The proponent is confused when he read studies stating both conceptions identical in nature and hence, equal footing status, when in fact it exacerbated further confusions and tensions.
Consequently, the primal objective of this study is to remove the confusion that these two terms are facing. To exclude their identical character we need explanatory power to claim and defend our main idea, and what the author is thinking is to present human security with its own explanatory power to make a (standing) paradigm coherent and clear. Further, the purpose is not a matter of challenging what the other scholars have said but to add another view or element to the diverse interpretations of human security vis-à-vis non-traditional security. And his objective is to simply interpret human security as clear as possible and without attached ambiguousness. The proponent’s essay will first look into the evolution and development of the conception of the term ‘security’ then will discuss the ambiguity between the two conceptions and provide humanitarian intervention as the explanatory framework to establish its autonomy.
Click here to download the full paper for free.
Law and Society: International and Comparative Law eJournal, Vol. 6, No. 130 (October 26, 2011)