Doktrinde İnsan Güvenliği Kavramı: Destekleyenler ve Eleştirenler

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 223 - 241, 05.05.2017

Zerrin Torun

Öz

Birleşmiş Milletler
Kalkınma Programının 1994 yılı İnsani Kalkınma Raporu insan güvenliği kavramını
öne çıkartmıştır. İnsan güvenliği korkudan ve ihtiyaçlardan özgür olmaya ve
onurlu bir şekilde yaşama özgürlüğüne vurgu yapmasıyla daha önceleri yaygın
olan devlet ve ulus güvenliği kavramlarından ayrılmıştır. Bu tanım insan
güvenliğinin insan hakları ve kalkınma ile bağlantılarını vurgulamaktadır.
Raporda insan güvenliği yedi kategoriyi kapsayacak şekilde tanımlanmıştır:
ekonomik güvenlik, gıda güvenliği, sağlık güvenliği, çevre güvenliği, kişisel
güvenlik, toplum güvenliği ve siyasi güvenlik. Bu makalede kavramın eleştirel
bir güce sahip olmadığı iddia edilmektedir. Makale önce kavramın uygulamada
nasıl ele alındığını ortaya koyacaktır. Daha sonra kavramın destekleyicisi
akademisyenlerin çalışmaları ele alınacaktır. Kavramı destekleyenler için, insan
güvenliği güvenlik çalışmalarında özgürleştirici bir dönüşüme işaret eder. Son olarak kavrama yönelik
eleştirel yaklaşımlar üzerine yoğunlaşacaktır. Kavrama eleştirel yaklaşan
akademisyenlerden kavramın genişliğine itiraz edenler olduğu gibi, kavramı
devletlerin elinde bir araç olarak görenler de vardır. Böylece insan güvenliği
kavramının güçlü ve zayıf yönleri bu makalede birarada sunulacaktır. Bu yönüyle
makale kavramı ya destekleyen ya da eleştiren literatürdeki yayınlardan
ayrılmaktadır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsan güvenliği, korkudan özgürlük, ihtiyaçlardan özgürlük, insan güvenliğini destekleyenler, insan güvenliğini eleştirenler

Human Security in the Doctrine: Supporters and Critics

Öz

United Nations Development
Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report has brought human security concept to
the forefront. Human security is distinguished from previously common state and
national security by its emphasis on freedom from want and fear and freedom to
live in dignity. This definition focuses on human security’s links with human
development and human rights. The report defines human security on the basis of
seven categories: economic security, food security, health security,
environmental security, personal security, community security and political
security. This article argues that human security does not have critical power.
The article first presents how human security is put into practice.

Then it will look at the work of
academics who support the concept. For its supporters, human

security points to a liberating
transformation in security studies. Finally, it will focus on critical
approaches to the concept. Among the critical academics, there are those who
oppose the wide scope of the concept as well as those who see the concept as a
tool for the states. The strengths and weaknesses of the concept will thus be
brought together in this article. This sets the article apart from studies
which focus either on supporting or criticizing the concept.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human Security, freedom from fear, freedom from want, supporters of human security, critics of human security

Kaynakça

• Acharya, A. (Eylül 2004), “A holistic paradigm”, Security Dialogue, , Cilt: 35(3), ss. 355-356.
• Alkire, S. (Eylül 2004), “A vital core that must be treated with the same gravitas as traditional security threats”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 359-360.
• Atanassova-Cornelıus, E. (2006), “Defining and implementing human security: the case of Japan”, T. Debiel ve S. Werthes (ed.), Human security on foreign policy agendas. changes, concepts and cases, Institute for Development and Peace, INEF Report, 80/2006, ss. 39-51.
• Bajpai K. (Eylül 2004), “An expression of threats versus capabilities across time and space”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 360-361.
• Bajpai, K. (Ağustos 2000), Human security: concept and measurement, Kroc Institute Occassional Paper, No 39:OP:1.
• Behringer, R. M. (2005), “Middle power leadership on the human security agenda”, Cooperation and Conflict, Cilt: 40(3), ss. 305-342.
• Bellamy, A. J. ve M. Mcdonald (2002), “‘The utility of human security’: Which humans? What security? A reply to Thomas & Tow”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 33(3), ss. 373-377.
• Christie, R. (Nisan 2010), “Critical voices and human security: to endure, to engage or to critique”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 41(2), ss. 169-190.
• Commission On Human Security (2003), Human security now, New York.
• De Larrınaga M. ve M. G. Doucet, “Sovereign power and the biopolitics of human security”, Security Dialogue, 2008, Cilt: 39(5), ss. 517-537,
• European Union (Haziran 2016) Shared vision, common action: a stronger Europe: a global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security Policy, http://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en. Erişim: 7 Temmuz 2016.
• Ewan, P. (2007) “Deepening the human security debate: beyond the politics of conceptual clarification”, Politics, Cilt: 27(3), ss. 182-189.
• Grayson, K. (Eylül 2008) “Human security as power/knowledge: the biopolitics of a definitional debate”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Cilt: 21(3), ss. 383-401.
• Grayson, K. (2010), “Human security, neoliberalism and corporate social responsibility”, International Politics, Cilt: 47(5), ss. 497-522.
• Hoogensen, G. ve K. Stuvøy (Haziran 2006), “Gender, resistance and human security”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 37(2), ss. 207-228.
• Hubert, D. (Eylül 2004), “An idea that works in practice”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 351-352.
• Hudson, H. (2005) “‘Doing’ security as though humans matter: a feminist perspective on gender and the politics of human security”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 36, ss. 155-174.
• Japonya Dışişleri Bakanlığı (9 Şubat 2016) Friends of human security, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human_secu/friends. Erişim 6 Ağustos 2016
• King, G. ve C. J. L. Murray (Kış 2001-2002), “Rethinking human security”, Political Science Quarterly, Cilt: 116(4), ss. 585-610.
• Krause, K. (Eylül 2004) “The key to a powerful agenda, if properly delimited”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 367-368.
• Mccormack, T. (2011), “Human security and the separation of security and development”, Conflict, Security & Development, Cilt: 11(02), ss. 235-260.
• Mccormack, T. (Mart 2008), “Power and agency in the human security framework”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Cilt: 21(1), ss. 113-128.
• Newman, E. (2010), “Critical human security studies”, Review of International Studies, Cilt: 36, ss. 77-94.
• Owen, T. (Eylül 2004), “Human security – conflict, critique and consensus: colloquium remarks and a proposal for a threshold-based definition”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 373-387.
• Paris, R. (Sonbahar 2001) “Human security: paradigm shift or hot air?”, International Security, Cilt: 26(2), ss. 87-102.
• Sixty-Sixth General Assembly Plenary (4 Haziran 2012), Human Security ‘more than an abstract concept’ — for hungry family, it’s food on the table, for refugee, it’s shelter from conflict, General Assembly told, GA/11246, 112th Meeting (AM), http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11246.doc.htm. Erişim 7 Ağustos 2016.
• Thakur, R. (Eylül 2004) “A political worldview”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 35(3), ss. 347-348.
• Thomas, N. ve W. T. Tow (2002) “The utility of human security: Sovereignty and humanitarian intervention”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 33(2), ss. 177-192.
• United Nations Development Programme (1994) Human Development Report 1994, UNDP, New York, 1994.
• United Nations Trust Fund, Human Security Approach, http://www.un.org/humansecurity/human-security-unit/human-security-approach. Erişim 06 Ağustos 2016.