Is Human Security Better Than State Centric Security?

Is Human Security Better Than State Centric Security? Along with the end of the Cold War, the spread of globalisation, and the fast development, the world is facing new challenges and threats endangering states as well as people all over the world. Those new problems require effective counteractions. Two approaches can be distinguished, which are particularly meaningful in a context of global security, Human Security, and state-centric approaches, such as realism, neo-realism, or Strategic Studies. They differ not only because of the subject of their focus, and hence the manner of protection, but also because definition of security they draw and methods of achievement of that security. New threats endanger people globally, therefore Human Security, which is focused on the providing the security of people, not states in the first line, seems to offer better way of dealing with these non-traditional problems. However, is the Human Security sufficient? Both approaches, like any other theories, comprise positive and negative aspects. In ord er to estimate which of these two approaches offer a better way of dealing with non-traditional new global security problems, first the definition of security will be explained, in context of both theories, to assess an impact of diverse conceptions of security on the specifying threats and methods of dealing with them. Next, and there will be assessed an importance of non-traditional new global security problems, in the scope of states and human security, and threats and difficulties associated with them will be clarified as well. Furthermore, both conceptions will be characterised, including examination of manner they offer to challenge the new threats, and to provide security, additionally effectiveness of their models will be estimated. Finally, two perceptions will be compared, emphasising the most colliding issues between them, and all arguments will be put together and summarised in ending statement. Diverse dimension of security Primary issue, whilst discussing the different perception of the global security problems, appears to be understanding of the security concept. Recognition of threats and methods we use to challenge them depend on the way we define security. We can distinguish two potential objects of security, states and human beings. The former conception is strictly associated with realism, which favour protection of state as the highest authority, according to King and The traditional view of security has focused on using the military to ensure the territorial integrity of sovereign states.  [1]  Realists argue that the main goal of states is assurance of their survival, regardless of citizens well-being. Military potential is according to realism a guarantor of states existence, and consequently, therefore realists claim that the best method to obtain the highest level of security is maximization of states unilateral military capabilities.  [2]  However, there is also other side of this idea, because such states struggle to the maximization of military power and international hegemonic position, as Richard Ullman argues in the long run can only increase a global insecurity,  [3]  therefore realist definition of security seems to have positive as well as negative aspects. Such model on the one hand offers a way to protect states, but on the other hand put it in danger. The latter concept, Human Security theory, draws a view that the individuals are of primary importance. For that reason they turn their attention towards the international rather than national security. Subsequently, because of its wider and more global character, it establishes different risks, not only military, but also environmental, social, and economic, proposing different methods of protection. However, there is also another interesting aspect, even though people are aware of the different kinds of threats and their crucial impact on their lives they value defence from violence more than from any other risks. The outcome of the enquiry conducted in 2005 in Afghanistan justifies that fact. Accordingly, 37% of questioned said that violence is the biggest danger facing their country, whilst 29% sustained that they are economic problems, such as poverty or unemployment.  [4]  Subsequently, people appreciate their physical safety more than a good condition of a country, and bel ieve that violation of human rights is the major threat resulting in many others difficulties. To sum up, the essential aspect in counter measuring of a particular threat is first its recognition, because in order to deal with something we need to be aware that it is a threat to our security. The effectiveness is determined by the extent that particular threat endangers our security. Here arises the question, how those distinct perceptions of threat and security affect attitude of both approaches to non-traditional threats? Non-traditional new global security problems We cannot decide of the predominance of one theory over another without explaining types and meaning of non-traditional security problems. New threats are of diverse nature, for example environmental threats, spreading of diseases, grooving population, poverty, intercontinental crime, threats associated with new technology, or acts of terrorism, and for that reason there are so hard to be challenged. What makes them even more problematic is their interconnectedness, usually one issue is correlated with another one or even causes another problems. They, therefore, need collective response, which obviously in anarchical model of self-interested states created by realists is difficult to obtain. Non-traditional threats often cause as many harms as traditionally defined dangers, such as war. This assumption is illustrated by the following example: AIDS is a direct threat to human security because it kills an estimated three million people every year.  [5]  Health issues concern not only developing countries, as it is generally believed. Stefan Elbe claims that because of the number of military operations all over the world, and highly developed tourist industry, the diseases spread very fast all over the world. Furthermore, there are also economic consequences, necessity of replacement of infected stationed soldiers equals additional costs, and likewise those soldiers create a risk for the population of their national states. Such situation took place in Sierra Leone, during peacekeeping operation number of people infected by HIV/AIDS increased in that region.  [6]   Another worth noting issue is environmental threat. Thomas Homer-Dixon argues that environmental scarcities are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the world.  [7]  There is strict correlation between water and land exploitation and ethnic and national conflicts. Scarcity of resources resulting from devastating environmental occurrences such as global warming, acid rains, or deforestation, in result constrains people to migration, fighting for other sources of resources, or worsens states economic and social situation. Some of non-traditional threats are of greater military context, such as terrorism, arm trade, or militarization of children, other are less, such as poverty, health insecurity, or violation of human rights. What is certain, however, all of these threats are of the significant importance in terms of global security, both of people and states. Notwithstanding, difficulties in confronting those non-traditional threats derive from interrelation and global dimension of those issues. Non-traditional threats can very fast, if ignored, transformed into traditional ones. Which of the given approaches then offer a better way of dealing with new threats to global security? State-centric security approaches in an era of new threats First, there will be discussed the case of state-centric approaches, which at the first sight sacrifice very little attention to non-traditional threats. According to main theory in that scope, realism, major actor on the political arena is a state, and it is a state that should be protected and secured. Subsequently, the primary, if not only, danger for state is military invasion of other state; therefore the chief area of state-centric considerations is war and peace. Correspondingly to that conception, the only provider of security is state, and as long as the external security of state is achieved, the state is in stable and safe position. Accordingly, protecting the state from military threats has the effect of protecting its people,  [8]  what indicates that state-centric approaches do not completely ignore the safety of people, although they believe that safety can only be attained through military actions. Realism and other state-centric approaches offer some useful ways though with dealing with non-traditional threats, even though some argue that they do not even recognise domestic insecurity as a threat.  [9]  Realism focuses on the national security. War, as Amitav Acharya argues, frequently endangers people by causing physical violence, but also undermines interior situation of the state, triggers malnutrition, migration of refugees, maximises the probability of pandemic, and negatively affects economic and industrial development of a certain state,  [10]  to name only few destructive features of military conflicts. For that reason, preventing wars consequently provides, to some extent, security against non-traditional threats which would result from a military conflict. Moreover, considering national security as a primary value affects the seriousness in deliberation any threats that somehow put that national security at risk. Nevertheless, not every arising problem might be resolved militarily. Furthermore, state-centric approaches apparently omit a lot of serious aspects of global security, we may even say that they are very monothematic in a context of security. One of the major omissions is a role of a state as the threat for its own citizens, not always protector. Enquiry held by Amnesty International greatly exemplifies such argument: In 1993 annual report of Amnesty International spoke of human rights violations on a terrifying scale, recording violations in 161 states.  [11]  States interest are, in a context of that particular theory, various of the interest and well-being of its inhabitants, Alan Collins even claims that a state exists somewhat apart from society,  [12]  as a result it is unsafe to sustain that state should be the highest and only provider of law and security, and ought to have unconditional sovereignty. Another weakness of state-centric approach is its static character. It ignores possibility of collective actions in order to increase states and human security, as it does not recognise non-traditional threats as a serious danger. Richard Ullman claims that such manner, staying focusing only on the one aspect of a threat, reduces their total security.  [13]   Overall, state-centric approaches, although they established some valuable techniques of providing security, tend fail to provide reasonable method of dealing with non-traditional threats, as most of these threats are concerned with human, not state, security. Human Security in a struggle to assure global security The most beneficial factor of Human Security approach in dealing with non-traditional threats is its area of focus. It places human beings in the centre of considerations. Therefore, scholars of that particular theory very broadly define security and distinguish numerous variants of security violation. The Report of the Commission on Human Security defines Human Security as: to protect the vital core of all human freedoms and human fulfilment.  [14]  Human Development Report classified seven areas of human security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.  [15]  Why then Human Security seems to offer a better way of dealing with non-traditional threats? First of all, because it admits that those threats are of significant importance. Most of new threats are of a global not state dimension. Therefore, while attempting to assure of security of all the individuals around the world it is aware of necessity of involvement multiple actors in challenging those dangers, such as NGOs, civil society, intergovernmental organisations, international institutions, single individuals, and many others.  [16]  Furthermore, it offers numerous methods of dealing and preventing threats. To these methods we can include, for instance, world supporting programs, such as Millennium Development Goals, sanctions in case of any violations, humanitarian interventions, peacekeeping operations, implementation of international rules and laws, and setting up institutions that enforce abidance of those laws, because respecting human rights are at the core of protecting human security.  [17]  Human Security approach values more the prevention of conflict, en suring economic, social and political stability, than the military actions when the military dispute already begins. It comprehends the crucial meaning of development, innovations, and personal well-being. Additionally Human Security is seriously judged by states, for instance Japan and Canada included human security principles in their foreign affairs programs. Human Security is also the leading policy of the UN programs, and had its contribution in the establishment of Geneva Convention, Responsibility to Protect Report, the Ottawa Treaty.  [18]   However, although Human Security approach appears to offer very successful way of dealing with new global threats it has also some defects. One of its failures is that it ignores external military threats,  [19]  because it provides the security of people not states, it does not pay much attention to the relations between states. Next, it is difficult to find any effective method of dealing with non-traditional threats whilst we grant everything an importance, as Yuen Khong claims making everything a priority renders nothing a priority,  [20]  therefore we have already plurality of non-traditional threats, and it would be hard to challenge them if we grant everything an equal status. For that reason, some scholars argue that Human Security define concept of security extremely broadly and that makes it implausible. Consequently, Human Security is very often divided into two sectors freedom from fear, and freedom from want.  [21]   Notwithstanding, in a context of globalism and global dimension of contemporary threats, Humanitarian Security offers a better way of dealing with non-traditional threats. Mostly because majority of those threats endangers directly human security first and usually affects large regions at the same time, consequently collective response is inevitable, which is rather problematic to obtain in state-centric approaches. Comparison of both conceptions Which of those two approaches better adapts to contemporary standards, and offer a better way of dealing with modern threats? When we take under considerations Alan Collins argument, that conflict since the mid-1990s overwhelmingly takes place within the borders of developing states, not between states,  [22]  we would certainly assume that the state-centric approaches since the end of the Cold War are no longer adequate to current global situation. Nevertheless, there is also other aspect of a dispute between those two theories, namely humanitarian intervention. Realists strongly believe in the right to unconditional sovereignty and that in some cases, intervention may exacerbate conflict, rather than mitigate it. Furthermore, interventions of different kinds are sometimes regarded as the hegemonic interference and an attempt to gain control. This in effect might cause hostility, as the threat to ones sovereignty is a threat to a security. Consequently how can we deal with new t hreats, which include also protection of fundamental rights, without supplying more harm than benefit? Human Security theorists believe, on the other hand, that sovereignty is conditional, as long as a state is responsible for well-being and protection of its citizens, any violation of that should require response of international community. It is strictly combined with the idea of sovereignty as responsibility.  [23]   Conclusion To summarise, both theories in contrary way try to challenge new global security threats. Nevertheless, state-centric approaches together with the end of the Cold War seem to lost their effectiveness and plausibility. Human Security, because of its alternative attitude and flexibility in dealing with arising problems, also due to its widely defined concept of security offer methods which appear to be more adequate and have a potential of success. Nature of non-traditional threats is diverse, interlinked and primarily global, therefore to deal with such threats, collective response is essential, but also of multilateral character, i.e. confronting diverse problems at the same time. The most threatened in a context of new global problems is human being, and from both of these theories, only Human Security offers a direct protection of people, and offers a resolution of global dimension, which is necessary taking under consideration global problems.

Common Accidents Among Children

Common Accidents Among Children A person would think the safest place on earth is a family’s home. Most accidents occur in and around the home. Most of the accidents that occur could have been prevented if a few precautions have been taken. Safety measures are often overlooked when a people are in a rush however protecting loved-ones from a senseless tragedy is worth the time. Most accidents that occur with infants are the use of mobile walkers. In 1997, mobile walkers need to be made wider than 36 inches, the size of a standard door. Accidents occur when a child in a walker falls down the stairs. The accidents can happen either inside a house, outside on the ground, or when on a deck or raised surface. Although it is the law that children are to ride in car seats when under the age of six or 60 pounds not everyone follows the law. Children are injured in motor vehicle accidents when the children are not placed in the car seats, the car seats are installed improperly, or the child is not wearing a seat belt. Many times when children are injured from not being in a car seat in an accident, there is an empty car seat in the back seat of the car. Burns are very common accidents with children. Parents should make sure their thermostat on the water heater is set below 120 degrees. Burns occur from scalding hot water in the bath tub. Many children suffer burns when adult’s accidentally spills hot liquids such as coffee or tea on a child. Children can also receive burns when they grab the handles of pots cooking on the stove. Parents should always make sure they all pot handles are turned toward the back of the stove so small children cannot pull them down on top of them. Another common way children receive burns are when the children pull the cords of curling irons or irons. Children riding on bikes with their parents are often injured. Children’s feet are caught in the spokes of the bicycle. Parents should always ride in seat. Parents and children should always make sure to wear their helmets. Poisoning is another accident that can be preventable. Cleaning products, paint thinners, pesticides, and medicines need to be locked up and out of the reach of children. Alcoholic beverages and tobacco should also be kept out of reach of children, if ingested it can be harmful to children. Children can also ingest plants that are poisonous. It is a good idea for parents to keep the phone number to poison control by the telephone in case of accidental ingestion. It is also a good idea to keep a bottle of Ipecac syrup in a medicine cabinet at all times. Parents should never induce vomiting unless instructed to do so by poison control. One of the most common causes of injury or death to young children is drowning. More males are injured than females, 3:1. A common misconception is that it takes a great deal of water for a child to drown. However, a child can drown in a few inches of water. Parents should Eradicate any standing water around the home. It sounds a little silly but even installing locks on the toilet bowl lids could prevent drowning. Children drown when left unattended in the bathtub. Parents should never leave their child unattended for any length of time when filling a bathtub full of water (Neifert, M. ,2003). Swimming pools should have gates with locks and have removable ladders. Children should never be allowed to swim by themselves. To maximize the security of children around the swimming pool, some parents have installed a water alarm. The alarm will sound when something enters the water. Electrocution is another common accident. Parents should put safety plugs in all outlets. This helps so that children cannot stick their fingers or metal objects into the outlets. Electrical cords should be hidden or out of the reach of the children. Children can pull at them or chew on them. Radios, curling irons and hair dryers should always be unplugged and kept away from the bathtub. Choking is another injury which occurs to children. Children especially those who have not started to walk yet pick up small objects off the floor and put them in their mouths. Toys that have small removable parts should not be given to children. Another toy children love that should be avoided is balloons. When balloons pop, the child can put a piece into his or her mouth. Once the balloon is swallowed it is very difficult to eject the balloon out of the child’s throat. Parents should always supervise their children when they are eating. Parents should avoid giving children hard candy, grapes, hot dogs, and peanuts. Children have also been known to choke accidentally themselves on the cord to the mini-blinds. Parents should not let their children play with long strings, ribbons, or ropes. Plastic bags should be thrown away or kept out of the reach of children to prevent suffocation. Keeping children safe is a difficult job. Parents and caregivers can make it easier by taking a few helpful precautions. If a house has a flight of stairs, parents need to put safety gates at the top and bottom to help prevent children from falling (LeBlanc, 2007). Keep the stairs free from toys or clutter to prevent falls. Loose carpeting should be tacked down and area rugs should have non-slip mats on the underside. The best way to prevent tragic accidents is to be aware about home safety. Supervision is the key with children. Children are quick and accidents can occur in a few seconds. References LeBlanc, J. (2007). Making Our Homes Safe For Children. Pediatrics for Parents, 23(9), 12. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database Neifert, M. (2003). Preventing common childhood injuries. Baby Talk, 68(8), 19. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.

Earths Bigger, Older Planetary Cousin

Ever since astronomers first began searching out planets around other stars, theyve found thousands of planet candidates and confirmed more than a thousand as actual worlds. There could be billions of worlds out there. The tools of the search are ground-based telescopes, the Kepler Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, and others. The idea is to look for planets by watching for slight dips in the light of a star as the planet passes in its orbit between us and the star. This is called the  transit method because it requires that a planet transit the face of the star. Another way to find planets is to look for tiny shifts in the stars motion that are caused by a planets orbit. Detecting planets directly is very difficult because stars are quite bright and planets can get lost in the glare.   Finding other Worlds The first exoplanet (a world circling other stars) was discovered in 1995. Since then, the rate of discovery grew as astronomers launched spacecraft to look for distant worlds. One fascinating world that theyve found is called Kepler-452b. It circles a star similar to the Sun (a G2  star type) that lies about 1,400 light-years from us in the direction of the constellation Cygnus. It was found by the Kepler telescope, along with 11 more planet candidates orbiting in the habitable zones of their stars. To determine the planets properties, astronomers conducted observations at ground-based observatories. Their data confirmed the planetary nature of Kepler-452b, refined the size and brightness of its host star, and pinned down the size of the planet and its orbit Kepler-452b was the first near-Earth-sized world found, and it orbits its star in the so-called habitable zone. Thats a region around a star where liquid water could exist on the surface of a planet.  It is the smallest planet ever found in a habitable zone. Others have been larger worlds, so the fact that this one is closer to our own planets size means astronomers are close to finding Earth twins (in terms of size).   The discovery does NOT tell whether or not there IS water on the planet, or what the planet is made of (that is, whether it is a rocky body or a gas/ice giant). That information will come from further observations. Yet, this system does have some interesting similarities to Earth. Its orbit is 385 days, while ours is 365.25 days. Kepler-452b lies just five percent farther away from its star than Earth does from the Sun.  Ã‚   Kepler-452, the parent star of the system is 1.5 billion years older than the Sun (which is 4.5 billion years old). Its also a bit brighter than the Sun but has the same temperature. All these similarities help give astronomers a comparison point between this planetary system and our own Sun and planets as they seek to understand the formation and history of planetary systems. Ultimately, they want to know how many habitable worlds are out there.   About the Kepler Mission The Kepler space telescope (named for astronomer Johannes Kepler) was launched in 2009 on a mission to spy out planets around stars in a  region of the sky near the constellation Cygnus. It performed well until 2013 when NASA announced that failed flywheels (that keep the telescope pointed accurately) were failing. After some research and help from the scientific community, mission controllers devised a way to keep using the telescope, and its mission is now called K2 Second Light. It continues to search out planetary candidates, which are then re-observed to help astronomers determine the masses, orbits, and other characteristics of the possible worlds. Once Keplers planet candidates are studied in detail, they are confirmed as actual planets and added to the growing list of such exoplanets.

Battle of Cape St. Vincent - Horatio Nelson Battle of Cape St. Vincent

The Battle of Cape St. Vincent was fought during the Wars of the French Revolution (1792 to 1802). Jervis won his victory on February 14, 1797. British Admiral Sir John JervisCommodore Horatio Nelson15 ships of the line Spanish Don Josà © de Cordà ³ba27 ships of the line Background In late 1796, the military situation ashore in Italy led to the Royal Navy being compelled to abandon the Mediterranean. Shifting his principal base to the Tagus River, the commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, Admiral Sir John Jervis instructed Commodore Horatio Nelson to oversee the final aspects of the evacuation. With the British withdrawing, Admiral Don Josà © de Cà ³rdoba elected to move his fleet of 27 ships of the line from Cartagena through the Straits of Gibraltar to Cadiz in preparation for joining with the French at Brest. As Cà ³rdobas ships got underway, Jervis was departing the Tagus with 10 ships of the line to take up a position off Cape St. Vincent. Having left Cartagena on February 1, 1797, Cà ³rdoba encountered a strong easterly wind, known as a Levanter, as his ships cleared the straits. As a result, his fleet was blown out into the Atlantic and forced to work their way back towards Cadiz. Six days later, Jervis was reinforced by Rear Admiral William Parker who brought five ships of the line from the Channel Fleet. His work in the Mediterranean completed, Nelson sailed aboard the frigate HMS Minerve to rejoin Jervis. The Spanish Found On the night of February 11, Minerve encountered the Spanish fleet and successfully passed through it without being detected. Reaching Jervis, Nelson came aboard the flagship, HMS Victory (102 guns) and reported Cà ³rdobas position. While Nelson returned to HMS Captain (74), Jervis made preparations to intercept the Spanish. Through the fog on the night of February 13/14, the British began to hear the signal guns of the Spanish ships. Turning towards the noise, Jervis ordered his ships to prepare for action around dawn and stated, A victory to England is very essential at this moment. Jervis Attacks As the fog began to lift, it became clear that the British were outnumbered nearly two-to-one. Unfazed by the odds, Jervis instructed his fleet to form a line of battle. As the British approached, the Spanish fleet was divided into two groups. The larger, consisting of 18 ships of the line, was to the west, while the smaller, made up of 9 ships of the line stood to the east. Seeking to maximize the firepower of his ships, Jervis intended to pass between the two Spanish formations. Led by Captain Thomas Troubridges HMS Culloden (74) Jervis line began to pass the western Spanish group. Though he had numbers, Cà ³rdoba directed his fleet to turn north to pass alongside the British and escape towards Cadiz. Seeing this, Jervis ordered Troubridge to tack to the north to pursue the larger body of Spanish ships. As the British fleet began to turn, several of its ships engaged the smaller Spanish squadron to the east. Turning to the north, the Jervis line soon formed a U as it changed course. Third from the end of the line, Nelson realized that the present situation would not produce the decisive battle that Jervis wanted as the British would be forced to chase the Spanish. Nelson Takes the Initiative Liberally interpreting Jervis earlier order of Take suitable stations for mutual support and engage the enemy as coming up in succession, Nelson told Captain Ralph Miller to pull Captain out of line and wear ship. Passing through HMS Diadem (64) and Excellent (74), Captain charged into the Spanish vanguard and engaged Santà ­sima Trinidad (130). Though severely out-gunned, Captain battled six Spanish ships, including three that mounted over 100 guns. This bold move slowed the Spanish formation and allowed Culloden and subsequent British ships to catch up and join the fray. Charging forward, Culloden entered the fight around 1:30 PM, while Captain Cuthbert Collingwood led Excellent into the battle. The arrival of additional British ships prevented the Spanish from banding together and drew fire away from Captain. Pushing forward, Collingwood pummeled Salvator del Mundo (112) before compelling San Ysidro (74) to surrender. Aided by Diadem and Victory, Excellent returned to Salvator del Mundo and forced that ship to strike its colors. Around 3:00, Excellent opened fire on San Nicolà ¡s (84) causing the Spanish ship to collide with San Josà © (112). Nearly out of control, the badly damaged Captain opened fire on the two fouled Spanish vessels before hooking onto San Nicolà ¡s. Leading his men forward, Nelson boarded San Nicolà ¡s and captured the vessel. While accepting its surrender, his men were fired upon by San Josà ©. Rallying his forces, Nelson surged aboard San Josà © and compelled its crew to surrender. While Nelson was accomplishing this amazing feat, Santà ­sima Trinidad had been forced to strike by the other British ships. At this point, Pelayo (74) and San Pablo (74) came to the flagships assistance. Bearing down on Diadem and Excellent, Captain Cayetano Valdà ©s of Pelayo ordered Santà ­sima Trinidad to re-hoist its colors or be treated as an enemy vessel. Doing so, Santà ­sima Trinidad limped away as the two Spanish ships provided cover. By 4:00, the fighting effectively ended as the Spanish retreated east while Jervis ordered his ships to cover the prizes Aftermath The Battle of Cape St. Vincent resulted in the British capture of four Spanish ships of the line (San Nicolà ¡s, San Josà ©, San Ysidro, and Salvator del Mundo) including two first-rates. In the fighting, Spanish losses numbered around 250 killed and 550 wounded, while Jervis fleet suffered 73 killed and 327 wounded. In reward for this stunning victory, Jervis was elevated to the peerage as Earl St. Vincent, while Nelson was promoted to rear admiral and made a knight in the Order of Bath. His tactic of boarding one Spanish ship to attack another was widely admired and for several years was known as Nelsons patent bridge for boarding enemy vessels. The victory at Cape St. Vincent led to a containment of the Spanish fleet and ultimately allowed Jervis to send a squadron back to the Mediterranean the following year. Led by Nelson, this fleet achieved a decisive victory over the French at the Battle of the Nile.