Human Security: a paradigm contradicting the national interest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human Security has sparked remarkable turmoil throughout the epistemic community of international relations during the last years1. Being on the one hand popularized by international organizations like the United Nations2, on the other hand proclaimed as a practical foreign policy posture by states like Japan, Norway and Canada, this apparently innovative concept of security imposes itself to the scientific discussion. Human security refers to the human being and its individual security as a pattern of international relations, widening thereby the scientific perspective to threats beyond military security taking into account interrelated problems of under-development and human rights3. This orientation represents in fact a crucial contestation to the current hegemonic paradigms of realism and neo-realism with their concentration on interstate security competition. However, there is not only dispute about questions of analysis and explication, but also divergence concerning the normative character of this new paradigm. Human Security claims to deliver an analytical framework for research and explanation of security problems, but moreover, as a normative concept, it also demands to be a practical signpost fully applicable to foreign policy. Such a political predisposition renders the emerging paradigm of Human Security especially sensitive to reproaches put forward by competing schools of thought in international relations theory: Is the concept nothing but idealistic hot air4, inapt to confront the rough reality of an anarchic international system which forces all states to care but for their own national interest? Doubting the applicability of the Human Security paradigm to real politics means neglecting an essential component and motif of Human Security as a whole, committing thereby a deadly blow to its legitimacy. Putting it simply: Who needs a signpost signing nothing but abstract theory?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".