1. Anne Hamilton
Globalization & Security
Dr. Park Seo-Hyun
2 July 2015
Security: A Human & Environmental Perspective
Roland Paris discusses the evolution of security outside of the traditional military defense of state
interests and territory in his 2001 article, Human Security: ParadigmShift or Hot Air. Paris describes
human security as a neologism, similar to – common security, global security, cooperative security, and
comprehensive security. He states that these neologisms encourage policymakers and scholars to think
about international security as something more than the standard military defense.
Paris asserts that human security is like “sustainable development” – everyone is for it, but few
people have a clear idea of what it means. The middle powers of the world such as Canada,Norway,
Finland and Sweden have spearheaded this concept of transforming how global powers address
international security issues. The first major statement concerning human security in the public arena
appeared in the 1994 Human Development Report which is an annual publication of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). It claims the “concept of security has for too long been interpreted
narrowly: as security of territory from externalaggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign
policy or as global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust…forgotten were the legitimate concerns
of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives” (Paris, 89).
Today the UNDP’s 1994 definition of human security remains the most widely cited and most
authoritative formulation on the term, although different members of the human security coalition have
customized the definition to suit their own particular agendas. Luckily the human security network –
(Canada,Norway, Japan, severalother states and an assortment of NGOs) has committed itself to the goal
of “strengthening human security with a view to creating a more humane world where people can live in
security and dignity, free from want or fear,and with equal opportunities to develop their human potential

2. to the full” (Paris, 91). Though Paris seems to think that the idea of all humans and natural realms are
fundamentally interrelated is a truism, I must respectfully disagree. Humans have co-existed on this planet
for millions of years. If the foundation of our education system focused on instilling in future generations
the importance of co-existing with the natural world— then we would be able to secure a future that is
significantly more stable with an opportunity for all to thrive. The current forecast for our immediate
future is dire and requires sustainable solutions to be proposed, implemented and enforced as soon as
possible. Otherwise, the availability of clean water for many nations, even the elites- will be nonexistent.
In defining the core values of human security it may be difficult not only because there is so little
agreement on the meaning of the term, but because for some the ambiguity serves a particular purpose: It
unites a diverse and sometimes fractious coalition of states and organizations that “see an opportunity to
capture some of the more substantial political interests and superior financial resources” (Paris,95).
Given these circumstances,they are unlikely to support outside calls for greater specificity in the
definition of human security, because definitional narrowing would likely highlight and aggravate
differences among them, perhaps even to the point of alienating particular members and weakening the
coalition as a whole.
Human security has been described as many different things: a rallying cry, a political campaign,
a set of beliefs about the sources of violent conflict, a new conceptualization of security, and a guide for
policymakers and academic researchers.Efforts to sharpen the definition of human security are a step in
the right direction, but they are likely to encounter resistance from actors who believe the concept’s
strength lies in its holism and inclusiveness. This is where the power of research and a review of the
history of collapses of nations directly caused by natural resource depletion can assist in defining the
process and reinforcing the urgency to find effective solutions.
Thomas Homer-Dixon’s article Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from
Cases goes into great detail concerning the impact of environmental scarcity on national and international

3. security. Coming generations will see the widespread depletion and degradation of water aquifers, rivers,
and other water resources; the decline of many fisheries; and possibly significant climate change. If such
environmental scarcities become severe,they could precipitate violent civil or international conflict in the
foreseeable future. Environmental scarcities are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of
the world. These conflicts will likely be the early signs of an upsurge of violence in the coming decades
that will be induced or aggravated by scarcity. From these pressures the chance of states fragmenting or
becoming more authoritarian increases by the day (Dixon, 6).
Vast populations in the developing world are already suffering from shortages of good land,
water,forests,and fish; in contrast, the social effects of climate change and ozone depletion will probably
not be an immediate cause for concern until well into the next century. “Environmental change” refers to
human-induced decline in the quantity or quality of a renewable resource that occurs faster than it is
renewed by natural processes. Environmental change is one of three main sources scarcity of renewable
resources; the others are population growth and unequal social distribution of resources. The concept of
“environmental scarcity” encompasses all three concerns.
A fall in the quality or quantity of renewable resources can combine with population growth to
encourage powerful groups within a society to shift resource distribution in their favor. We call this type
of interaction “resource capture”. Unequal resources can combine with population growth to cause
migrations to regions that are ecologically fragile. High population densities in these areas,combined
with lack of knowledge and capital to protect local resources,causes severe environmental damage and
chronic poverty. This process if often called “ecological marginalization” (Dixon, 11). Examples used in
the Dixon’s article are the Senegal River Valley conflict of 1989 and the water shortage of the occupied
West Bank on the Jordan River. Both are glaring examples of the results of ecological marginalization
causally related to environmental scarcity.

4. Ecological marginalization occurs with striking regularity around the planet, affecting hundreds
of millions of people in places as diverse as the Himalayas, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Brazil and Sahel.
Population growth, rising average resource consumption, and persistent inequalities in access to resources
ensure that scarcities will affect many environmentally sensitive regions with a severity, speed and scale
unprecedented in history. Dixon suggests through market and other institutional innovations, that our
social ingenuity may be the only solution to the very dire and persistent problem of resource scarcity.
I agree with Dixon on presuppose that social ingenuity may be our only hope for resolution.
Possible long-term sustainable solutions could be: integrating permaculture within the secondary
educational system across the globe. Teaching our future generations how to grow their own food, how to
sustainably farm and co-exist in the natural world with hopes of reversing the last 100 years of light speed
destruction that humans have imposed on this planet. Something not discussed in either of these papers is
the fact that industrial agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s total clean water usage, regular
industrial use (ie: manufacturing) accounts for 22% of the world’s clean water usage and domestic water

5. usage only accounts for 8% of the world’s total clean water usage (UNWater.org). See image below
If our policymakers would have enough backbone to recognize this consumption rate as unsustainable and
implement and enforce strict regulations on industrial use, it would be a gigantic step in the right direction
and away from environmental insecurity.
Dixon goes on to improve his hypothesis on environmental security in relation to violent conflict
later in his article stating, “I narrowed the range of environmental problems that were hypothesized to
cause conflict, so as to deemphasize atmospheric problems and focus instead on… water,fisheries and
especially cropland…expanding the scope of the independent variable to include scarcity caused by
population growth and resource maldistribution as well as that caused by degradation and depletion”
(Dixon, 18). Resource wars have been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of the state system.
However,more violent conflict arises from nonrenewable resource scarcity than renewable resource

6. scarcity. Since petroleum and mineral resources can be more directly converted into state power than can
agricultural land, fish and forests.
Resource degradation and depletion often affect economic productivity and can be costly to the
state powers in terms of funding and legitimate support from its citizenry. Resource loss can reduce
incomes of elites directly dependent on resource extraction; since these elites usually turn to the state for
compensation. Scarcity also expands marginal groups that need help from government by producing rural
poverty and by displacing people into cities where they demand food, shelter, transport, energy and
employment. In response to swelling urban populations, governments introduce subsidies that drain
revenues,distort prices, and cause misallocations of capital, which in turn hinders economic productivity.
Such large-scale intervention in the marketplace can concentrate political and economic power in
the hands of a small number of cronies and monopolistic interests, at the expense of other elite segments
and rural agriculture populations. Simultaneously, if resource scarcity affects the economy’s general
productivity, revenues to local and national governments will decline. Such a widening gap between state
capacity and demands on the state arising from environmental scarcity aggravates popular and elite
grievances, increases rivalry between elite factions, and erodes the state’s legitimacy (Dixon, 25).
Environmental scarcity has insidious and cumulative social impacts, such as population
movement, economic decline, and the weakening of states. These can contribute to diffuse and persistent
sub-national violence. The rate and extent of such conflicts will increase as scarcities worsen. It will have
serious repercussions for the security interests of both the developed and developing worlds. The risk of
large powerful democratic states to shift to becoming “hard” authoritarian regimes intolerant of
opposition is very likely as a result of resource scarcity. As a result, such regimes are more likely to
launch military attacks against neighboring countries to avert attention from internal grievances.
A state’s ability to become a hard regime in response to environmentally induced turmoil depends
on two factors: sufficient remaining capacity (resources) and enough surplus wealth in the countries

7. ecological-economic system to allow the state,once it seizes this wealth, to pursue its authoritarian
course. Most experts neglect the dangers posed by resource scarcities. Dixon quotes a researcher by the
name of Jack Goldstone in his closing arguments. “There is not sufficient land, nor sufficient water,to
provide for the additional hundreds of millions that will be born in the next decades” (Dixon, 38).
Dixon’s research shows that environmental scarcity causes violent conflict. This conflict tends to
be persistent, diffuse, and subnational. He goes on to assert how its frequency will probably jump sharply
in the next decades as scarcities rapidly worsen in many parts of the world. The social impacts of
environmental scarcity therefore deserve immediate attention from security scholars across the globe.
Without pressure from the citizens of every great nation on this planet the mega powers will continue to
focus their energy and resources on accumulating greater wealth no matter if it is at the expense of our
planet or even the lowly humans that are not members in their elite boys club.
As many great leaders have said before and now I will say it again, “We have not inherited this
earth from our parents to do with it what we will. We have borrowed it from our children and we must be
carefulto use it in their interests as well as our own. Anyone who fails to recognize the basic validity of
the proposition put in different ways by increasing numbers of writers, from Malthus to The Club of
Rome, is either ignorant, a fool, or evil”.
Works Cited:
Paris, Roland. "Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?" International Security 26.2 (2001): 87-102.
Print.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. "Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases."
International Security 19.1 (1994): 5-40. Print.