Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Security Dialogue
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Owen, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Human Security - Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition

Taylor Owen

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Norway

The aim of the colloquium in this issue of Security Dialogue was to both summarize and advance the rich but scattered literature on human security. The result is a microcosm of the ten-year academic debate, told through the condensed perspectives of many of the people who shaped it. This article first summarizes the 21 thoughtful and innovative commentaries, and identifies three principle themes: the theoretical broad-versus-narrow debate, human security’s practical utility, and the fundamental critique and defense of the concept. Then, it is proposed that a threshold-based conceptualization, one rooted in the original UNDP definition, offers a conciliatory way forward to what is often characterized as a fractured debate. It is suggested that limiting threat inclusion by severity, rather than by cause, bridges the divide between the broad and narrow proponents, addresses the many critiques of the concept, and provides a clear policy agenda operating on various scales.

Key Words: critical security studies • development studies • humanitarian intervention • human security

Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, 373-387 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0967010604047555
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
Y. Nishikawa
Human Security in Southeast Asia: Viable Solution or Empty Slogan?
Security Dialogue, April 1, 2009; 40(2): 213 - 236.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Cooperation and ConflictHome page
M. Nuruzzaman
Paradigms in Conflict: The Contested Claims of Human Security, Critical Theory and Feminism
Cooperation and Conflict, September 1, 2006; 41(3): 285 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
G. Hoogensen and K. Stuvoy
Gender, Resistance and Human Security
Security Dialogue, June 1, 2006; 37(2): 207 - 228.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
P. H. Liotta
Through the Looking Glass: Creeping Vulnerabilities and the Reordering of Security
Security Dialogue, March 1, 2005; 36(1): 49 - 70.
[Abstract] [PDF]