Recalling the objective and principles of, and the commitments under, the Convention, Acknowledging the importance of addressing climate change and its adverse effects in the context of sustainable development, Pledging to take further action in the wisdom that the adverse effects of climate change are likely to grow in the future and that developing countries are the most vulnerable and the least able to adapt,

No abstract

AIDS has been medically visible for 30 years; but only in the last five have the security implications of the pandemic begun to be discussed seriously. This debate has been in many ways unsatisfactory to date. The purpose of this article is to begin to rectify this at the moment when the first major efforts to combat the pandemic are beginning to take effect. It records therefore the history of that debate and ascertains in what useful and defensible senses AIDS can be described and managed as a security issue. It argues that there are, indeed, several that meet these criteria. The article describes the first three engagements with the disease from the time of its discovery and then suggests three newer ones and, it argues, more fruitful approaches that have advanced since 2000 of which the security dimension is one. The others are the geo‐politics of the human immune system and analysis through the prism of political economy. The scope of the next waves of AIDS after the southern African one, is depicted. Its coming intersection with oil and Great Power politics is noted.

The link between HIV/AIDS and ‘security’ is said by many to be well understood, particularly that between the movement and activities of uniformed services and the epidemic. There are strong opinions widely asserted. But recent research undertaken for UNAIDS by LSEAIDS (which brings together leading social scientists at the LSE to confront the social and economic implications of HIV/AIDS), reveals that this is not at all the case. The evidence base is patchy—strikingly so. It has been over‐interpreted and even misinterpreted in the rush to respond to a perceived threat by asserting generalizations that do not stand up. In this article the arguments and some of the evidence are reviewed, as are the forces advocating a precipitate response based on poor evidence. The article describes the principles that should underlie an empirically more robust approach.