Human Security Studies: A Review of Literature and Critical Analysis

This essay provides a comprehensive review of literature on human security, focusing on the debate between human security and critical security studies. It begins by outlining the evolution of security studies and the emergence of human security as a paradigm shift. The paper then delves into Edward Newman's arguments, which question the significance of human security in the context of security studies, and analyzes the criticisms and objections to Newman's views. The review examines the strengths and weaknesses of Newman's arguments, the conceptual vagueness inherent in human security, and the approach's effectiveness in policy and development studies. It references key scholars and their perspectives, ultimately aiming to evaluate the contributions of human security in the broader field of international relations and security studies, highlighting its theoretical and practical implications. The essay concludes by advocating for a deeper theoretical focus within the scholarship to develop a more critical approach to human security, acknowledging the need for a precise definition and addressing its instrumental role in policy and development.

Running head: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of Literature
Student’s name
University
Author’s note

1REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The changing landscapes of the international relations, conflicts and diplomatic efforts,
the central perspectives of security studies have also undergone major altercations and
transformations over the years. Several scholars, researchers and bureaucracy experts have
emphasized different aspects of security. One of the major developments in the field of security
studies, since the Cold War, has remained in the theories of human security. As a novel approach
to national and international security, human security posits supreme importance on the security
of individuals and their complex economic and social interactions. This approach marks a
paradigm shift from the traditional security studies, which holds state as the primarily important
in terms of external and internal security. As opposed to the traditional approach, the end goal of
human security approach is to ensure the protection of the individuals from traditional (e.g. state
coercion and atrocities) and non-traditional (disease, poverty, calamities etc.) threats (Black
2016). However, Edward Newman, in his seminal work Critical human security studies poses a
fundamental question against this novel approach. He asks whether human security should be
taken seriously in the context of security studies. Newman’ article is considered as an influential
contribution to the discipline of security studies. However, his arguments have been objected and
criticized by several scholars. Hence, the present paper makes an attempt to review the strengths
and weaknesses of Newman’s arguments, and further evaluate his conclusions on the merit of
existing literature of the field.
The main purpose of Newman’s article, to be precise, is an evaluation of human security
approach as compared to that of critical security, and determining why the later approach has
discarded the central tenets of the human security approach. To this end, Newman fundamentally
argue that the critical human security studies, through its evolution and proliferation, has
eventually subsumed the contribution of human security studies. Also, he points out several

2REVIEW OF LITERATURE
shortcomings and flaws embedded in the former approach, which, according to him, makes
human security fade in comparison to critical human security studies.
Newman argues that human security approach, as compared to critical human security,
essentially maintains a ‘problem-solving’ attitude; rather than a critical or analytical point of
view. He opines that the approach do not venture to engage in ontological, epistemological or
methodological altercations. This is because, as Newman portrays, human security scholars
consider such theoretical discourses as irrelevant in the context of policy development or access
to the same. Hence, the approach has remained largely ‘uncritical and ‘unpolished’ in the face of
the contemporary demands of the field ( Newman 2010).
Newman’s remark, although poignant, does not hold much truth in its claim. The human
security approach is a powerful and globally accepted analytic framework that facilitates
effective as well as comprehensive analysis and planning. It has both a theoretical and a
pragmatic approach, which makes it a comprehensive framework. The effectiveness of human
security approach ranges from coordination to integration, moving the security agenda beyond
state sovereignty and focusing on inherent threats such as poverty, deprivation and
underdevelopment. (UN.org 2017). Moreover, Newman himself acknowledges a portion of
human security scholarship, although representing a small fraction of the discipline, who
addresses both broad and narrow perspective of human security. Thus, they approach human
security from a theoretical perspective and integrate it with security studies upholding the praxis
of the discipline.
While Newman analyses the approaches of human security rather harshly and critically,
he successfully identifies the fatal flaw inherent in the system, namely the conceptual vagueness

3REVIEW OF LITERATURE
due to the broad scope of human security. Along with Newman, it has been noted by a vast
majority of security studies scholarship that the process of conceptualization in human security
essentially lacks due to the absence of a universally accepted and precise definition (Newman
2020). There are more than twenty definitions at use, although none of them is able to grasp the
entire ethos of the central ethos of human security. Hence, it is problematic to incorporate any of
the definition comprehensively in a framework of policy analysis and risk mitigation (Grayson
2010). According to Taylor Owen (2005), this apparent lack of a precise definition poses as a
challenge to the primary purpose of human security, i.e. identification of threat, causes of threat
and mitigation mechanism in human security. However, the ambiguity in the conceptualization
hinders the operability of human security. On one hand, the broad conceptualization does not
precisely identify what should be considered as security threat; while on the other, the threat
inclusion limits the facilitation of policy implementation.
In the light of the arguments presented by Newman, the redemption of human security
lies in the critical approach that he advocates to be upheld by the scholars in the particular field.
Given the fuzzy nature of the approach, it is agreed upon by many scholars that human security
is instrumental to policy and development studies, rather than actually addressing security
measures in international politics and bureaucracy. In this sense, Newman is accurate in arguing
in favour of a deeper theoretical focus in the scholarship, which may develop a critical approach
in human security.

4REVIEW OF LITERATURE
References
Black, D.R., 2016. A Decade of Human Security: global governance and new multilateralisms.
Routledge.
Grayson, K., 2010. Human security, neoliberalism and corporate social responsibility.
International Politics, 47(5), pp.497-522.
Newman, E., 2010. Critical human security studies. Review of International Studies, 36(1),
pp.77-94.
Owen, T., 2005. A Response to Edward Newman: Conspicuously Absent? Why the Secretary-
General Used Human Security in All But Name. St Antony's International Review, 1(2), pp.37-
42.
UN.org, 2017. Human Security Handbook. [online] UN.org. Available at:
<https://www.un.org/humansecurity/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/h2.pdf> [Accessed 29 March
2020].