Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Human security. It needs to be at least 2000 words.Download file to see previous pages... The author believes that the deeper understanding on the
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Human security. It needs to be at least 2000 words.
Download file to see previous pages...The author believes that the deeper understanding on the ideas will be attained by examining the opposing and concordant views on human security. The articles reviewed have become as compelling as they present realistic and eye-opener accounts, yet antithetical in some degree. Overview of Chandler’s Work The article by David Chandler entitled, Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark provides an important revelation on the “deconstruction of myth that human security shows a typical conflict between the state and the individual security” (Owen 2008). Chandler’s article is based on the analysis of the two books namely, Human Security: Concepts and Implications written by Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh &. Anuradha M. Chenoy and A Decade of Human Security: Global Governance and New Multilateralisms written by Mclean, Black &. Shaw. Chandler started his argument through citing the idea that global policy making overbearingly suggests two different views. One view pointed out the construal of the dynamics of the society’s power relationships and inequalities, as well as insecurities. The other view pertained to the idea of identifying the interrelatedness, interconnection, and susceptibilities of security threats and the urgency for composite, cooperative, human-centered answers. Chandler’s First Argument While Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy claimed that human, as well as the state, should work interdependently, Chandler (2008) conceded that human and the state are indivisible, yet gave consideration to the importance of examining the problem that transpires regarding the state’s collaboration of its idea outside of its absolute model. Chandler ended up criticizing that the authors are more involved with advocacies instead of the evaluation of definite process of human security. Chandler’s first argument stated that “human security exaggerates new post-cold war security threats” (Chandler 2008, 435). This argument is compelling as it contradicts to the paradigm of human security. The author contended that one of the prevailing reasons why the human security has been applied wrongly by the state is because it overstated the post-cold war security threats. Chandler (2008) claimed that with the absence of conventional adversaries like terrorists, human security processes close the gap securitization issue like environmental, health, and economic security. Nevertheless, inquiry is not about how these issues are securitized but rather it is more important to evaluate the result of these actions. Since Chandler declined to elaborate the result of these actions, it is safe to assume that he falls short of accusing Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy for not considering the connection between normative theory and policy procedures. Chandler’s Second Argument Further, Chandler (2008, 435) argued that “human security advocates locate these threats in the developing world.” While there are other part of the developed countries, which also have security problems, advocates can also be considered as correct since majority of the people who experienced security problems like extreme poverty are located in developing countries. These people are more vulnerable that is why it has given more attention. In contrast, Chandler (2008) argued that the causal link of human security processes in a globalized world do not exist at all is somewhat questionable since the actual connection solely depends on what dependent variable is utilized.
