The concept of human security drives towards a reductionist and idealistic understanding of international security.There is certainly a case for studying the interplay between the international and domestic security agendas,but my concern is that human security aims more at collapsing them than at opening up their relationship.By attempting to collapse all the possible referent objects for security into a single one,human security excludes the claims of both collective and non-human(e.g.environmental)referent objects in a way that defies both other moral claims and the actual practices of securitization.Finally,reconstructing human rights as human security reinforces the danger that security is taken to be the desired end.Human rights is much better placed to support the idea that the desired end is some form of desecuritization down into normal politics.Thus,as an analysis framework,human security proliferates concepts without adding analytical value in international security studies.

International Relations scholars as well as policy-makers have generally accepted that a major transition in the Asia-Pacific security order is under way with China's rising power being the primary cause of this evolution.This paper investigates the concept of order in relation to this evolution in power.First,the paper notes the various ways in which the term ″order″ has been used in the academic literature.It settles upon a definition that is active in form,and that highlights the extent to which there is a demonstrated commitment by the rising power to establishing a set of conditions that will help bring about certain ″community″ goals.The next section of the paper examines how other scholars have described order in the Asia-Pacific before outlining the ways that China's rising power and influence are affecting regional order.The conclusion here is that,whatever China's intentions,its increased capabilities and new knowledge have enabled China to play a much enhanced role in the re...更多gion.Following on from this,the paper then investigates China's own concept of regional order as outlined in some official documents.This concept of order is then linked to specific Chinese policies-bilateral and multilateral:towards a wide range of Asia-Pacific states and organizations.In particular,I make reference to Southeast Asian countries,organizations such as the ARF,ASEAN,and APT,as well as to the Chinese attitude to the maintenance of a US presence in the region.Finally,the paper examines how compatible Chinese conceptions of order are with those of other states and organizations in the region,again with a particular focus on Southeast Asia and on the United States.Such a comparative dimension is important,I argue,in any attempt to assess the degree to which order might be disrupted as a result of China's rising capabilities and influence.And,on the whole,China's policies have been generally reassuring to a range of states.A reasonably strong compatibility of vision exists between China and the Southeast Asian states;and although a somewhat less developed compatibility exists in Northeast Asia,especially in relation to Japan,this might improve over time.There are also a number of compatibilities with respect to the United States.However,while China's policies have been deemed generally reassuring,there are still some remaining fears about China's future intentions.This is mainly because of the steady enhancement of its military strength,the fear that it might use force to deal with the contingency of Taiwan,and a lack of transparency.Beijing's reluctance to offer full disclosure about its long term strategic plans still causes unease.In conclusion,China's relations are good and improving with a number of states in this region.To date,there is little evidence to support the notion of hierarchy or a tributary mentality developing in Asia,whereby local states line-up behind Chinese preferences.China may not like,but accepts that it shares this region with many other states,including the US,Japan,the ASEAN states,and increasingly India too.Power is diffused which makes it difficult for one state to set the agenda or be the sole creator of order.

This article investigates the relationship between Regional Security Complex theory(RSCT)with both traditional and human security perspectives.Traditionally,security studies concerned mainly issues of war and force;and treated the state as the only referent object and understood ″security″ in purely objective terms.By contrast,RSCT asserts that,as ″a self-referential practice″,security should be regarded as a phenomenon of socially constructed intersubjective politics,not understandable either in purely objective or subjective terms.Yet,RSC theorists are reluctant to address the issue of human security,as they fear this could result in a reductionist understanding of security(see,Buzan 2004).But we must ask whether this reluctance is sustainable? The key issues are conceptual clarity and moral judgements.In terms of conceptual clarity,it would be unwise to expand the security agenda so widely that everything becomes a security issue.Moreover,the concept of human security remains ambigu...更多ous,and hence presents analytical difficulties.However,if IR is to reflect developments in the real world and respond to challenges arising from the policy arena,it must engage with the concept of human security.In other words,the intersubjectivity of securitisation means that the referent object of security ceases to be fixed.Ethical questions are less straightforward.The human security approach,with its idea of ″people-centric-security″,requires us to reorient security thinking around the individual as the referent object.This is bound to produce ethical dilemmas,particularly when there are conflicts between individuals and states.In fact,the main recent disruptions to international security have resulted more from human suffering by natural disasters or of violations of human rights by governments than from interstate wars.How then shall we draw the lines of human security? If threats to human security come not only from natural disasters,but also from conflicts between states and their citizens,does this mean that state sovereignty should be curbed? So far,the extensive debates on issues of ″order″ and ″justice″ have failed to produce satisfactory answers.By definition,ethical judgements are difficult.Thus,the RSC theorists' conservative approach to human security is understandable,but little is gained by excluding the concept.Human security issues are becoming more important in international society and present RSCT with conceptual and moral challenges.Above all,the key concepts of RSCT-security for whom,from what and by what means now require ethical judgements.If this is the case,future security studies may be forced to transcend the traditional limits of International Relation and have to embrace the insights and methodologies of neighbouring academic disciplines.

This paper discusses ″environmental security″ as an essential domain of ″human security″,followed by considerations on the possibility of ″environmental cooperation for peace″.″Human security″ refers to facilitating transition from state security to security which places importance on human,from military security to security by sustainable development,hence ensuring ″freedom from fear″ and ″freedom from want″.Since the late 1980's,global environmental issues became a major problem and surfaced as an agenda of international politics.As a result of promoting development based on the paradigm of development for security,environmental destruction is caused,and regional conflict triggered.In such a paradox of development and security,the Brundtland Commission in its report of 1987(″Our Common Future″)proposed the concept of ″sustainable development″,which was accepted as the central idea at the 1992 Earth Summit.From the late 1980's,discussions on environmental security attracted attention....更多Jessica Matthews argued that environment should be added as an important element of security.The reason for this was that environmental destruction were becoming more serious,causing regional disputes and threats to security.The on-going global environmental problems cross-national boarders and mutually related in a complex manner.In order to solve such problems,transnational,regional and global cooperation is essential.It is required that each country set a diplomatic model based not on narrow-minded national interests,but on environmental and human security as a common interest of humankind.It can be said that environmental cooperation might breed mutual trust which would contribute to peace building.Ecological interdependence is becoming increasingly deeper.Military security is a zero-sum or minus-sum game.On the other hand,better environment resulting from environmental cooperation will give merit to all parties.Environmental cooperation requires long-term viewpoints.Also,what is important is not only a top-down approach led by the government,but also a bottom-up approach.Since it is the local people that are affected by the global environmental problems,it is essential that they can participate in the decision-making process,and to promote civil society cooperation.In the East Asian countries,there are large differences in their political systems and economic conditions,while ecologically it is made like a single joint-less textile.Therefore,for environmental measures,an approach that may be called an ″East Asian Environmental Community″ is necessary.As discussions on the East Asia Economic Community are developed,it is necessary to consider along with this discussion on a framework for cooperation and joint action in the field of environment.We have come to a stage where a concept on an East Asian Environmental Cooperation Mechanism that would ensure the participation of each country and collaboration with the civil society must be immediately developed,in order to comprehensively and promptly tackle the environmental problems in East Asia.