In the debate on human security, the leading question for many is ‘where do we go from here?’ Through this article, the authors contribute to the discussion by exploring both the extent to which gender approaches have been relevant to the human security debate thus far and how they can offer some directions forward. They argue that gender approaches deliver more credence and substance to a wider security concept, but also enable a theoretical conceptualization more reflective of security concerns that emanate from the ‘bottom up’. The authors therefore incorporate gender theory to develop human security as an epistemological perspective to security studies. Gender theory claims that security must be linked to empowerment of the individual, as well as to the capabilities to create positive environments of security. They employ the tool of resistance as one crucial example of human agency in security. Practices of resistance, in the latter’s various empirical forms, are present in all social contexts. Such a perspective on security directs attention to the practices of agents and provides a basis for exploring contextually dependent insecurities and securities.

This article is a contribution to the ongoing debate on human security in Security Dialogue; the authors argue that they provide an illustration of the complexity and dynamism of security. To illustrate this point, the authors examine security through the notion of societal security as understood by Ole Wæver, and use identity as a ‘door’ to a broader understanding and use of the concept of security. The focus of the article is gender identity as an integral perspective of security. In conjunction with elite-defined state interests, identity articulates the security interests of ‘significant groups’, supporting the articulation of security needs by individuals (as they identify themselves with various significant groups) and communities. Gender is identified as a ‘significant group’ relevant to the security dynamic. Using gender identity to understand security requires breaking down rigid and fundamental structures that have been built around traditional notions of security, allowing for articulations of security as it is understood by individuals in general and by women in particular.

No abstract

No abstract

Bentham has hitherto been one of the most neglected of the eighteenth century philosophers. His name is a household word; he is universally acknowledged to be one of the founders of modern utilitarianism, his body is preserved in a curious mummified form in a little glass cabin at University College, London. But hitherto Bentham's works have been chiefly known through a notoriously bad collected edition made by a young protégé of his named Bowring-a knight, a general, a Christian (the author indeed of that famous Victorian hymn, In the Cross of Christ I Glory)-but not a utilitarian, not ever a scholar. Moreover, Bowring cut out from what he published anything that might offend Victorian sensibilities akin to his own. 1 Until relatively recently, students and researchers of Bentham's vast work have primarily relied upon The Works of Jeremy Bentham edited in 1843 by John Bowring. 2 Apart from the original manuscripts, these edited works have been the primary source of Bentham's writings. The interpretation of Bentham's work has been highly dependent upon the editing, resulting in the Bentham we currently know. This could not be more true for our understanding of his work in international relations, and especially the essay A Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace. Unfortunately, it has been almost universally agreed that Bowring did not do justice to Bentham's work, and that the Works could not be considered reliable: 'at times the inadequacy of Bowring's editing stands clearly revealed', 3 and: