|Human security is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here.|
|WikiProject International relations||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Comments on the Proposed Outline
- 2 Fundamental Flaws
- 3 Article Size
- 4 Arms Control
- 5 Terrorism
- 6 Development
- 7 Humanitarian Intervention
- 8 Infectious disease
- 9 General Editing
- 10 Prevention
- 11 Global Warming
- 12 Intro
- 13 Proposed Format Changes
- 14 Adding a Criticism Section
- 15 Water
- 16 Shortening the page / Human security actors
- 17 Relationship with traditional security
- 18 International Criminal Court
- 19 Entire Article Needs to be Reorganized
- 20 Time to Clean-Up
- 21 Fair use rationale for Image:ICISSr2p.png
- 22 Security of Persons Merger / Relationship with Human Rights
- 23 Gender and human security
- 24 Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want
- 25 Criticisms:Ambiguity of concept
- 26 AP landmines
- 27 Prevention and Rebuilding
- 28 criticism: state sovereignty
- 29 criticism: state sovereignty (2)
- 30 Relationship with HR
- 31 Other General Approaches Related （Under FFF and FFW)
- 32 See also
- 33 Wikiproject Human Rights
- 34 End of U21/HKU Human Security Educational Project
Comments on the Proposed Outline
Very much looking forward to the expansion of this article which the recently posted content outline foreshadows.
That said, I'm not sure what is meant by "Human Security and Categories." Perhaps, a more concrete way to label that section would be "Freedom from Fear" vs. "Freedom from Want", at least at this stage. Moreover, should that section be posted under the "Practice of Human Security" or the "Concept of Human Security". I'm leaning towards posting it in the practice section, but could be persuaded otherwise.
Also, what about a section that focuses on "Criticisms" of the human security approach, which could elaborate on what has already been written and could link to various specific criticisms that should be written about in the practice sections of the human security article (or other articles on Wikipedia).
Finally, make sure that you link your practice topics with exisiting subject articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Looking forward to reading more. -- LMCinHK 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also like the possible future development of this article, as outlined in the content list. Like LMCinHK, I'm not sure what "Human Security and Categories" means. But I very much like the "Historical Development" as well as the "Relationships". Also, there should be a section including different approaches to establish basic pillars of the concept of HS, like, next to freedom from want and freedom from fear the proposed freedom from hazard impacts (by Hans Günter Brauch from the United Nations University) or Kofi Annan's guarantee for future generations to inherit a healthy environment.
- In addition, to me it is yet unclear how the "Practice of HS" parts should be filled. Is this supposed to be statements about threats to HS, or interactions between HS and the mentioned phenomena like global warming? Or does this include scientific practice, like the difference between a narrow and a broad definition used by the Human Security Centre in its Human Security Report? I would think this all fits better into a "Conzeptualization of HS" section.
- Anyway, these are just some thoughts that came up my mind, I already like to see the article evolving :) Hardern 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to include "Human Security" in all the section headers. Also note Wikipedia's capitalization:
- 1 Concept
- 1.1 ?
- 1.2 Historical development
- 1.3 Relationship with traditional security
- 1.4 Relationship with development studies
- 1 Concept
- etc.. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-21t18:49z
This is a good start, but the fundamental flaw in all of these sections is that there is not enough information on how these sections relate to the Human Security agenda. Remember, this is an article on Human Security. People reading it want to understand more about what Human Security means and how it is practiced. Those who want to read about terrorism, arms control, global warming, HIV/AIDS, etc can go directly to those Wikipedia articles to do so. For example, backgound information about specific threats (eg Global Warming or disease) should be included in the respective threat articles themselves (assuming this information is not already a part of these articles). What readers of the Human Security article want to know is how human security purports to deal with these threats and why human security provides a better alternative to what is already being done. (if you don't think it does, then perhaps the relelvant section could be moved to the "criticisms" part of the article.)
Also, be careful of using phrases such as "human security proponents argue that...." unless you have specific reference citations about whom you are talking. A safer way to phrase such sentences might be to say something like ... "In contrast to a more traditional security mindset, the human security school of thought highlights ..." Overall this article needs to be much more attentive to the diversity of opinions which characterize the human security school and how it should be practiced. Keep up the good editing!
--LMCinHK 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now that editors have made their initial contributions to the "human security" practice section of the article, it is time to get down to some serious editing.... as mentioned, much stronger links need to be made demonstrating what these sections have to do with human security. It is not enough to just mention that these issues demonstrate human security principles in practice, you need to show how. All of you have made a good start, but you need to focus on explaining to the readers why these case studies represent good examples of human security in practice. Also, as mentioned, much of this information in this section could be moved to other articles. Looking forward to reading more and keep up the good editing. --LMCinHK 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, this article has already exceeded the recommended Wikipedia article size. Its not something we should worry about right now since we are still working out the content of this article and how best to organize this content, but it is important as a reminder to keep your contributions brief and to the point ... The quality not the quantity of your contribution is what is important here. --LMCinHK 14:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if anyone has any input on the Arms Control section it would be appreciated. I think it is a bit wordy, but not sure what can be cut down on. Also, check out the smart mine page, i started it with some brief information but could do with more input. ta (devonwhittle 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
- Great work on the arms control Thewaya - i think its quite reasonable on the word count and covers the important points, i only made some minor edits, hope they're ok by you.
- Cheers Charlene(Pangaea42 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
I have kept the first paragraph as I think it is a relatively well written introduction linking human security and terrorism. I have reorganized the content and tried to categorize them better by moving some original text and adding some more content to new headings. I think the new headings make it more interesting and give the paragraphs focuses. I have also added the section of women as I think this is a relatively interesting point and as Alice mentioned, it would be good to add some examples for women in the practice section regarding women and human security. Added a few sentences about using human security concepts to justify counter terrorism with reference to an example, The resolution 1624. This is important as not only human rights is abused by some counter terrorist activities, but also human security principles are being used to justify their inappropriate action. I also expanded the section headed grass-roots portfolio diversification with an example of an intermediary. I think the part under "addressing physical, psychological and political dimensions", the list of concessions gives readers good real life examples and so it has been kept. All examples added are supposed to provide a vivid image of the text to the readers. There has also been some rephrase of the original text.
I have cleaned up the first paragraph and added a sentence commenting on the role of human security in combating terrorism. I hope this makes he first paragraph slightly more relevant. Jmd33 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Chun - good work on your article - i only made some minor changes to some sentences - hope you find them ok Cheers Charlene (Pangaea42 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
I moved my description of the R2P report to the first paragraph of the “Responsibility to protect” article and focused more importance of R2P on HS - on the advice of LMCinHK – thanks. I hope the first paragraph is a bit more readable for you guys now too; dont i just love my long sentences
Cheers Charlene (Pangaea42 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
I have added a section distinguishing the traditional security paradigm from the human security approach. I feel that it is important to note the short comings of the traditional security paradigm, to create a point of difference with the human security model - albeit something that needs to briefly be mentioned. I will add citations tomorrow or friday. I was wondering if i should reduce the Timor section? Jmd33 (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good work Jaime, but it is too lengthy and neds to be sharpened. Also, since this is the opening section of the practice part of the article, it is important that the reader understands what the practice of human security entails. For example, do supporters of R2P feel they are practicing human security? Maybe a few, but for most, no. So why are we talking about human security practice here? why is r2p an example of human security in action? --LMCinHK (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted sections on H5N1, HIV/AIDS, and implementation difficulties because I didn't find these sections directly relevant to the topic of human security. That said, if others disagree they can certainly reinstate these sections with perhaps further explanations of their relavance to the human security approach. Best, --LMCinHK 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest shortening the comparison of the traditional and human security approach to infectious disease to one paragraph, since this seems being a duplication of the very first part of our human security article. Would anyone comment on my idea? Best, Leekalee 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this question earlier. I would move the comparison up to the concept part of the article as a way to illustarte the general points in the table. By all means, shorten it!! Thanks. LMCinHK 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
While U21 Human Security students have done a fantastic job of getting this article started (Well done, all!), alas the course has come to an end and much more work needs to be done to strengthen this article. Looking forward to the many continued editorial contributions from fellow Wikipedians. -- LMCinHK 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- A new group of U21 Human Security students are back to continue with the editorial work on this article. Looking forward to working with others to substantiate, sharpen and polish this article. -- LMCinHK 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look over the article, and have noticed several things that I think should be edited in this article.
- My first impression is that this article is far too long. I think it contains too much information; much that does not directly link to the concept of human security itself. (i.e. many parts that elaborate too far on a concept within the article.) As a wikipedia article, I think these should be removed, and perhaps replaced to articles on individual concepts.
- There are also quite a number of statements that seems like a POV of a Human Security advocate, that make the article sound like a criticism to traditional security. I think these would be fine if they have sources, but there were quite a number of cases that weren't so. We either need to add sources, and if not should delete these statements.
- I also think there should be some editing in the structure of the whole article. There are some places that I think should be in different order. There are also some simple grammer/wordings that I personally do not prefer. (At least I think they are incorrect.)
- I know I have not pointed out any concrete points, but I promise to get back on that tomorrow. (Just really need some rest for now.) Anyways, just thought I would write something for a start! Lets get to work while we still have time, shall we? Aki s50 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ewai leong for your contribution focusing on the importance of "prevention" to the human security paradigm -- a topic that has been largely neglected in this article thus far. That said, I think much of what you contributed was repetitive of the article's section on humanitarian intervention. Kindly go back and read through what has already been written and make the appropriate edits.
I would also think about other areas of human security practice that focus on prevention -- early diplomatic negotiations to prevent multi-state conflicts over water from turning violent is possible example that could be explored. I'll leave the details up to you. Good luck.
LMCinHK 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ewai leong et al -- I think we need to transfer the bulk of the Indus Waters Treaty section to the wikipedia article of that name. We could then just leave a one or two sentence explanatory link about this treaty being a good example of the human security emphasis on: prevention, access to water as a fundamental security issue, etc.
- I also think we need to combine the humanitarian intervention/prevention section and shift some of your explanation on the importance of prevention and rehabilitation to human security into the "concept" secton of the article.
- Keep up the good editing. -- LMCinHK 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did some minor changes to the global warming section and tried to clarify the ideas a bit. There might still be some irrelevant materials and I'll try to clean it up. Blink25 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep up the good work! I would take out more of the background information about the impact of global warming and limit the article to the link between climate change and human security. The IPCC assessment reports could be linked in as well to demonstrate the disproportionate effect of global warming on poorer communities. While you're at it, you could also add a few sentences to the other relevant wikipedia global warming articles on the impact of global warming on individual security -- LMCinHK 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to get started, I'm going to clean up the intro a bit. Currently it states that Human Security is in opposition to traditional security, which I'm removing because later in the article it is stated that the two are complementary. Also, the focus on the individual rather than the state is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
Sarawickert 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well done. LMCinHK 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Format Changes
So, I've written something on access to clean water which needs to be added to the article somehow. But, considering that the main human security article is already too long, I think this should be added to a separate article. There is a drinking water article with a short section on access to water where this might fit. Any thoughts on this? As well, I would suggest that the terrorism and global warming sections also be shortened in this way. What do you all think?
Sarawickert 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sara, I agree with your suggestions. Perhaps, you could link the separate "access to clean water" article with the human security article in the section on the relationship between human security and development. I also agree that the global warming and terrorism sections need to be cut down.
- LMCinHK 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding a Criticism Section
Does anyone want to take a shot at adding a "criticism" section to the end of the article?
LMCinHK 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- >Dr Cummings
- I've added the part, but it needs expansion as I can only think of a few points.
- Ewai leong 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually found an article called 'water resources' which I've linked to the main Human Security article under 'Environmental Security'. The article is relevant and I'm working on expanding the water and conflict section. I wonder, though if I should also somehow connect it to the health security section since sanitation and drinking water fall under that heading and not environment.
Sarawickert 01:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Under the concept section, you could add a line or two about how human security emphasizes the linkages/interdependency between all these threat areas and illustrate that point by talking about the relationship between environmental and health security.
- LMCinHK 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Shortening the page / Human security actors
all, I originally planned to add a sub-heading "Human Security Actors" under the heading "practice of human security". However, I found the whole article too long and redundant (which is unlike other wiki's articles). For example, when talking about global warming, in my opinion, we should not talk about greenhouse effect, and define it as "increase in global temperature", as they are all avaliable in global warming article itself. we should focus on why it is relevant to human security (therefore the effects of global warming are ok to be here but not irrelevant items should also be removed) and how human security actors deal with the problem. if i really do it, it would be quite cruel to the original write. therefore i would like to ask you all for any opinion before i do it. Dixontse 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dixon -- Don't worry about being "cruel" to the original article and I agree that much of this article could be moved to other sections. When you make edits, especially if they are major, simply leave a post here to explain your rationale.
- As for human security actors, the article talks about the role of the UNDP, but doesn't really talk about other IO, NGO and middle-power state actors supportive of human security. You don't need to add another section devoted to this, but it would help to clarify (in a few sentences) the breadth and depth (or lack thereof) of support for the human security model. You might also think about linking to related Wikipedia articles. For example, is there an article on Canada's foreign policy or on the UN OCHA's Human Security unit? If not, is it worth starting these articles and linking them back to this article?
- Good luck and I'll look forward to reading your contributions. LMCinHK 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Dixon I'll try to work on it. By the way, I am thinking of adding Darfur as an illustration of how global warming affects human security. What do you guys think? Blink25 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Julia -- I think the Darfur conflict is a very good example, but I think a few sentences are enough. I think the article already elaborates too much on examples that have their own articles. Check out the Darfur conflict article, if you haven't already. Perhaps it would be a good idea to write a few lines to link Human Security into that article as well.Aki s50 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Relationship with traditional security
I've made some changes in the Relationship with traditional security part. There were parts that seemed to be repeating the same things: especially with the text and the table. Also, the table seemed to be very biased and from an unfair way of writing so i've tried to improve that a bit. How do you guys like the new table?
I'm also thinking about deleting the last paragraph about the 'cycle of mutual distrust' because I cant really think that it is relevent enough to the article of 'Human Security' itself nor the 'Relationship' to take up so much space. Can you give me some opinions on this?
I also think the "actor(s)" part in this section is not quite what we're looking for... I'll have to change that soon, but I'm really not quite sure how it should be rounded up. would be thankful if you all can help!
Aki s50 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the formating of the table but the content still needs work. It is too vague to really explain the fundamental differences between the two approaches. I have cleaned it up a bit, but it still needs work. LMCinHK 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added paragraphs trying to briefly introduce how human security and traditional security relate, actually, reinforcing each other. When people always mention the new paragdim of human security, they usually would think that this is oppposing or ignoring the traditional state security. At least, in my own view, human security is nonetheless excluding or undermining traditional view. Instead, the new paragdim is a complementing idea and leading the world into a more secure situation. Thus, I think such a additional passage is worth to be mentioned. Tokenny (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kenny, you have made a good start, but this section needs more work. 1) It needs to start with a sentence that describes the relationship between human and traditional security, not simply with a definition of traditional security. 2) it is too long and wordy. Think about inserting some of your key ideas into the table then deleting the rest. 3) your writing is not objective enough, especially when you talk about the importance of the state. Readers do not want to read Kenny's opinion, they want to read about the scholarly/policy consensus on the issue. Tone it down and be sure to cite references to validate your position.--LMCinHK (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- LMC -- I have added certain citations. For the part of state security, actually i am extracting from chapter 1 of the report which is not my own thought. Would this be more objective? Though you mentioned this part being too wordy, I do not figure out how to tailor this passage. Feel free to correct my words and give any advice to me. Tokenny (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have cut three paragraphs out of these section because I found them to be too long and not directly related to understanding human security. That said, there still needs to be one or two sentences that describe how national and human security are complimentary and one or two sentence that describe when and how their respective objectives may clash. --LMCinHK (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
International Criminal Court
I've added a section on the International Criminal Court. I've tried to make it as short as possible, so its only a few lines. Do you think I should add more information on it? Also, do you think it should be under the "practices" section or do you think it is fine to be a separate section on its own?
Aki s50 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Aki, I really like what you've written on the ICC. I don't think it needs to be any longer, since it's linked to the main ICC article on wikipedia. The only thing I would suggest changing is your last sentence, "The establishment itself can be seen as a victory of human security, and it greatly contributes to the enforcement, as crimes against it can be adjusticated." I'm not familiar with the word "adjusticated." I googled it and there were only about 40 hits, so even if it is the right word, I would suggest that it is not familiar enough for wikipedia. My suggestion for this sentence is, "The establishment itself can be seen as a victory of human security, adding an enforcement component, as crimes against it are adjudicated." I'll let you decide, though.Sarawickert 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sara -- Thank you so much for your comment, and great to know that you liked the edit. I really think that this article is way too long, elaborating too much on things that are already written on the main articles; especially many topics on the "practices" section. I really think we need to work on cutting those kilobites down!
- I want everyone to refer to this article on the ICC: I think it is a great example to see how to make articles short by making individual articles for further information of the sub-topics.
- BTW, I've mistaken the word "adjudicated", so I'll change that on my next click:) Thanks! Aki s50 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Entire Article Needs to be Reorganized
While there have been some valuable edits made to the article, I'm afraid that the overall article has become too bulky and lacks coherence. For example, why are sections on prevention, gender and economic inequality listed under human security practice (instead of under the concept)? Also, it is not clear why certain case studies have been chosen as examples of human security. Why for example is the ICC listed? More explanations need to be provided and clearer links between the concept and practice section of the article should be added.
Alternatively, the article could be restructured to combine the concept & practice sections of the article. Rather then listing case studies seperately, each of the examples could be used to illustrate and explain a conceptual argument.
Any other suggestions for restructuring? LMCinHK 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I have made some very rigourous changes to the structure of the article. Please comment. And I suggest setting up new articles for each sub-topic under practice of human security (e.g. a page on Global warming and HS, a page on Arms control and HS) and leaving only a few links as bullet points on this page. Any comment? Dixontse 08:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks better already Dixon! I had to move Gender and Poverty towards the top under concepts but I like what you did with it after that. The numbering is quite confusing so thank you for that! So far so good.
- I've edited the Gender section considerably for grammatical errors and neutrality. I hope that is okay with the original author. I tried as best as I could to keep with the essence of the initial ideas. Hkimgirl 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have moved "The Responsibility to Protect" book image alongside the third paragraph under "humanitarian intervention" because that is where it first gets mentioned. Hkimgirl 09:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi all, some changes i've just made, tell me what you think of them:
- - Added an "actors" section into the "Concept" part.
- - Removed the ICC part because it didnt seem to be coherent, and removed it into the "actor" section.
- - Replaced the first paragraph of the "practice" part to "critisism", since that is where it seemed to belong. Aki s50 14:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well done all. Major improvements. LMCinHK 05:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Time to Clean-Up
I have made some significant edits to the overall structure of the article which I think provide it with a better balance. That said, some of the writing remains incomprehensible, with arguments that are poorly defended or made without clear links to the concept of human security. Go back and review your contributions to insure that they don't fall into that category. LMCinHK 03:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:ICISSr2p.png
Image:ICISSr2p.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Security of Persons Merger / Relationship with Human Rights
According to Wikipedia guidelines, pages should be merged if they duplicate, overlap, one could be considered a subsection of the other, or one provides context/background for the other (thanks Alice). None of these conditions have been met in this case. Security of persons, as far as I can tell, refers to a specific human right codified in various national constitutions. Human security is an emerging paradigm for thinking about global politics. While these phrases share similar language, as security of persons is based on human rights law, I would think it should be merged into that article/group of articles. As it stands, it is not directly relevant to the human security article.
This discussion does beg the question about how human security and human rights are related. It makes sense that the human security article include a short section on the relationship between human security and human rights. It would go along way towards helping people understand human security and how it is different from human rights. --LMCinHK (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your discussion of the Security of Person page LMC. I have added a section on the relationship between human security and human rights, to try and succinctly explain the differences and similarities between the two concepts. Aleppitt (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Gender and human security
I have radically edited this section as I felt that it did not clearly demonstrate the links between gender and human security. To demonstrate the links i have discussed: the neglect of gender under traditional security; how human security, through it's focus on the individual, seeks to address this; how women are often the worst victims of security threats; and, how human security seeks to protect and empower women so global peace and security can be achieved.
I have left out specific examples as this is under the 'concept' section of the human security page. However, I would strongly advise the addition of some women's security examples in the 'practice' section. For instance: under 'humanitarian intervention', a discussion of rape as a form of political violence (i.e. in Sierra Leone or the Democratic Republic of Congo) could be included; and under 'infectious disease', a discussion of how HIV/AIDS effects women more than men could be included. Aleppitt (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added a section in the terrorism part on the role of women in fighting terrorism. I would be happy to add examples if you happen to have one in mind. Jenicheung (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want
I have edited the two sub-sections but retained the introductory paragraph of the article since it pointed out succinctly the reason for the rise of the two schools and their main difference. I have made two major editing on the Freedom from Fear section as I think it's necessary to let the wikipedia users know that the school does concede on the close links of violent threats with other areas of threats. Also, I included "the responsibility to protect" doctrine in light of the Darfur conflicts to bring out a reflection about the effectiveness of the school.
For the Freedom from Want school, I have deleted the example of Japan since it is debateable whether Japanese foreign policies truly reflect the adoption of this school's agenda. On the other hand, I added a concluding paragraph pointing out the relationship between the two schools in reality, for instance, the Japanese government's claim in adopting both schools and the UNDP1994 's calling for attention to both schools.
I've refrained from probing into real-life applications, such as the adoption of R2P by various states since they will be discussed in the practice section and it will make the whole piece of article more coherent and less repetitive.Hui ning425 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Rebecca
I found the discussion of these schools most helpful. The expressions "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want" appear to be gleaned from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble,. If you can confirm this, it would be nice to mention it. However, I don't know how to insert the reference. Will anybody do it?MarkusKoerner (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms:Ambiguity of concept
I have added two points on "What constitutes a security threat" and "How to prioritize security threats" in this part. I think it is necessary for wikipedia users to know under human security concept, there is still yet a clear guideline on in what circumstances social issues like human rights abuse should be securitized and treated as security threat. Also on prioritization, with so many security threats included under human security paradigm, yet it is very hard to deal with all issues at one time, lack of principles on how to prioritize these threats makes the concept vague and without a focus.Anniewcm (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the original "Ambiguity of the concept"part. I deleted most of the original work because I thought it was biased but I followed their original plan. I also added a point about responsibility because I consider it a strong criticism to human security and it's somewhat the result of the ambiguious definition, therefore I believe they should go under the same heading. The point about the difference between "broad and wide" definitions was made by Annie, I just edited her work a bit, not in terms of content, but flow. (Ana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anawisbeck (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now changed the section of AP landmines into one of Global disarmament.First I briefly talk about the issue, and its relation to Human Security. In the next para, I go on to give examples of some of the past efforts that have been made in this area.
Then there is a whole subsection relating to AP landmines in particular. In the first para, I differentiate between the traditional and human security views on AP landmines. Then I move on to the Ottawa Convention and its success in terms of Human Security. Then the next para points out the criticisms of the treaty.--Tisha87 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Prevention and Rebuilding
I have re-write the previous Prevention session into Prevention and Rebuilding to better illustrate the Human Security model's view on a broader scope of security from conflicts prevention (root cause & direct measures) to post-intervention rebuilding efforts. The sub-sections illustrate the background and possible approaches of Prevention and Rebuidling. Examples are also given. They are not as detailed as the previous version of Prevention as to keep this section sticks to a conceptual introduction instead of providing practicing examples. Difficulties of pursuing prevention and rebuilding measures are suggested. Mujitang (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
criticism: state sovereignty
The original version only sets out two points on contravention of state sovereignty and doubts on the use of human security as to tool to legitimize unwarranted interventions very briefly.
I have elaborated on the distrust of critics and expanded it to include the new Marxists insight of foster dependency of LDCs to continue with an exploitative relationship by the developed countries as well as an excuse to wage wars. Also, I have added in more examples in regard to China's human rights issue and the Iraqi War.
I have introduced new points on the fear on ineffectiveness of the human security paradigm due to the lukewarn response of states and a lack of political will particularly in view of the new rise of terrorism.
Finally, I have restructured the article so that it starts by introducing the conflicts between the traditional view of state sovereignty and human security. Then I proceed to talk about the doubts on human security's vulnerability to unconscionable use by countries to extend their national interest. Finally, I discuss the effectiveness of human security due to the lack of political will. (Eugenia Chan)
(New edits on 30 April 2008)
I have also added in new subheadings to make it more comprehensive as our ariticlemainly comprises of two points i.e. the distrust of human security as tool of those developed countries and its political infeasibility. (Eugenia Chan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanyingtung (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
criticism: state sovereignty (2)
This section was too brief that it only mentioned the potential problem with human security, that is the possibility of being abused by superpowers as an excuse to invade other countries. This seems not adequate so my colleague Eugenia and I decided to expand this section to enhance its readability.
I have made some new points on the applicability of human security on the issue of terrorism, explaining and comparing the strategies employed by the traditional security advocates and human security advocates.
My colleague Eugenia has elaborated the conflicts of implementing state sovereignty and human security ideas, by referring to the example of R2P (responsibility to protect), etc. She also introduced ideas from Marxists to illustrate the theory of "fostering dependency" by superpowers on weaker countries.
I hope our edits will bring new perspectives to readers.
Relationship with HR
Slight change in this part- adding links of natural law and natural rights to help the understanding of original ideas of human rights and human security. And during quick reading, I found some authors seem to make a distinction between HR and HS by defining HR maintaining luck egalitarianism; while HS has a threshold to give every human being the equal condition to fulfill their basic needs. It is added in too. Vivi88 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Other General Approaches Related （Under FFF and FFW)
Though the two schools of human security categorized in UNDP 1994 report are most popular approaches for now, many scholars are still working for a more consistant and concrete interpretation of human security. In another word, human security is an idea still developing. So I did some quick reading to gather some different ideas and approaches after 1994. Basically they all try to find more concrete "value", "want", "need" through different approaches. Vivi88 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. There are in fact a growing number of ideas floating around about how to best practice human security. Your additions to this section provide an important start to reporting on this expanded conceptual discussion. I have tried to clean it up a bit, but will look forward to seeing this important section clarified. --LMCinHK (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In such a net style encyclopedia, the entry of "human security" should not be isolated. In Team 4 discussion, we found a "see also" section was lacked here. So we spent a lot time checking those relevant entries. Some most relavant ones are added now; still more to be done. Vivi88 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Relevant links of Water Crisis, Government, Humanitarian Intervention, etc. added. The links here are more comprehensive now. Please add more related concepts if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretchan (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've included the link of "Sexual Slavery" and my edits on the implementation of Human Security Approach to solve the sex trafficking issue in Cambodia in that wikipedia page. However, I found the "Sexual Slavery" page discusses the situation of a few countries in details. Anyhow, the implementation of human security approach in Cambodia could provide a more comprehensive analysis on the problem of sex trafficking. Pretchan (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Human Rights
I have deleted the "wikiproject human rights" association for this article and would request that Wikipedians who would like to classify human security as a subset of "human rights" explain their rationale for doing so. While human security has its roots in human rights principles (and many would argue that it remains in this tradition), human security could also be said to have emerged in response to the perceived failure of "human rights," so represents a break with the human rights tradition (especially in the legal sense). Either way, the way human security is categorized remains controversial, so requires further discussion. Look forward to hearing other views on this issue. --LMCinHK (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
End of U21/HKU Human Security Educational Project
U21/HKU Human security students have ceased to be formally involved in the editing of this article as of June 2008. As the academic adviser to the course, I have deleted large sections of the article which were either overly verbose or had tenuous links to the concept of human security (or both). Needless to say, more editorial work is needed (and could well turn this piece into a "featured article"), but U21/HKU students can be proud of their contributions thus far. Well done to all those students who made thoughtful contributions and I hope you stay involved as Wikipedians. --LMCinHK (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)