A debate over human security and its definitions

Pro argues that many countries have good agreement on what constitutes the broad principles of universal human rights. I concede that there is a moral responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. My opponent claims that there is no mandate to give priority to the interests of foreign countries.

However, he characterized local economic development as mere "comfort," not human right. The government must make a choice between the interests of people within the nation and the rights of people everywhere. That empowers Kim Il-Jong to pursue his concept of rights as much as it empowers anyone else.

It is not possible to prioritize "universal human rights" without knowing what they are. Totalitarian leaders such as Kim Jong-il probably do have suitable definitions of universal human rights; but their failure to act on those definitions — to place human rights at a high priority — is what makes those governments unjust.

At the same time, if the government chooses to support national interests, the rights of people around the world will be relinquished.

Who defines universal human rights? Pro cites the French, "The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. And if they're already doing it, then great.

Pro counters that there are no grounds for my assertion of morality, and that since morality is such a difficult subject the claim should be discounted. Addressing the root causes of humanitarian crises e.

If this statement means what it seems to mean, and we assume that for a government to place its efforts in one area and not another requires a "sacrifice" by the people of the latter area, then it is immoral for the government to take any action, ever.

Hence rights based approaches to humanitarian action relate the achievement of security for marginalized people to the realization of their human rights and often to broader social change.

The founding of America was another of those cases in which human rights and national interest are not in conflict. Underfund the former and we risk our freedoms and even our lives. Pro clams that we even if we do not agree on what human rights are, they are all good so it doesn't matter. In addition, I would argue that ensuring human rights takes priority over the welfare of one's family.

Responsibility to protect Human security seeks to address underlying causes and long-term implications of conflicts instead of simply reacting to problems, as the traditional security approach is often accused of doing. Pro argues that the negation of "ought to" in the resolution is "ought not.

In response to this example, one might argue that the economic development of rural India is also among the "universal human rights" that ought to pursued.

The deficit problem might be better framed as a struggle between the security of all and the security of the old. The rebuttal in Pro's line of thinking is "It doesn't matter that no one knows what a frumious bandersnatch is.PDF | The concept of human security (HS) and its accompanying agenda, 20 years after the publication of the Human Development Report (), are still in a state of flux.

This article summarises. The debate over how to deal with the deficit is not, as many pundits have argued, a fight between a strong defense and a strong economy. At its core this debate over the deficit and spending reductions is a fight between national.

NATIONAL SECURITY HUMAN SECURITY PRIORITIES & INITIATIVES - Protection of the state, including its borders, independence, traditions, Debate over Application (HS Promotion and Enforcement) 34 "Ensuring human security is, in the broadest sense.

All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. But consensus breaks down over exactly what threats individuals should be protected from.

When forced to choose, a just government . . . (see text for full resolution)

Proponents of the “narrow” concept of human security, which underpins the HSRP’s research, focus on violent threats to individuals, while recognizing that. The thesis argues that regardless of the vague meaning of the term “security,” empirically its parameters are quite certain and definable by the specification of threats as indicators of insecurity.

The concept of human security (HS) and its accompanying agenda, 20 years after the publication of the Human Development Report (), are still in a state of flux. This article summarises the extent to which, based on an in-depth analysis of the original HS dimensions in the articles in this.

A debate over human security and its definitions
Rated 3/5 based on 95 review