2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 6 The concept of security in political Violence Jessica Wolfendale During the last 100 years, the concept of security has been used to justify war, revolution, torture, assassinations and invasions. The post-9/11 Us invasions ©OEや"OEoae-ı±2-や-Łや*°®や1Ø°Øや ł3±2ıRØŁや¬°2oe1⁄2やAE1⁄2や°ØOEØ°Ø-aØや2©や2aeØや-ØØŁや2©や¬°©2Øa2や national security, and the threat of terrorism to domestic and international security was invoked to justify radical counterterrorism measures such as extended police and intelligence powers, as well as torture, extraordinary rendition and detention without charge (see michaelsen 2005; Waldron 2006). :Ø2や ŁØ±¬ı2Øや 2aeØや OE°Ø®3Ø-a1⁄2や 1ı2aeや 1aeıaaeや 2aeØや a©-aØ¬2や ©OEや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ı±や ı-μ©øØŁや ı-や ŁØAE2Ø±や AE©32や ¬©oeı2ıaoeや μı©oeØ-aØ╇や 2aeØ°Øや ı±や oeımoeØや o°ØØssØ-2や AE©32や 2aeØやssØ-ı-oや ©OEや security. should the term 'security' refer to a state's military power, as traditional security studies have claimed (Buzan 1983)? or should security be understood as ae3ss-や±Øa3°ı21⁄2やむや2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやı-ŁıμıŁ3oeや¬Ø°±©-±や〉%3UØoeŁや-Łや8ŁŁØoeoeやイーーカ《′や if so, how does national security relate to human security and how are we to assess 2ae°Ø2±や2©や2aeØ±ØやŁıTØ°Ø-2やOE©°ß±や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2′や8ı2ae©32や-±1Ø°±や2©や2aeØ±Øや®3Ø±2ı©-±╇や2aeØや idea of security could easily become a meaningless concept that could be used to justify almost any policy that a state wishes to pursue.1 "やŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やss3±2やOE3oeRoeや±ØμØ°oeや°Ø®3ı°ØssØ-2±やıOEや¬¬Øoe±や2©や±Øa3°ı21⁄2や °Øや2©やł3±2ıOE1⁄2や¬©oeı2ıaoeやμı©oeØ-aØ╆や5aeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-やss3±2やaoe°ıOE1⁄2や1ae2やa©-±2ı232Ø±や±Øa3°ı21⁄2や as a political goal for states and individuals, what constitutes threats to security, how security is to be weighed against other political ideals, and which measures will increase security for states and individuals. only then can we be in a position 1 steve smith has argued that the concept of security is 'essentially contested'; that any ŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や】ŁØ¬Ø-Ł±や3¬©-や-Łやı-や23°-や±3¬¬©°2±やや±¬ØaıRaやμıØ1や©OEや¬©oeı2ıa±‒╇や -Łや ±©や や -Ø32°oeや ŁØR-ı2ı©-や ©OEや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ı±や ıss¬©±±ıAEoeØや 〉イーーオ╈や イキむク《╆や "±や 1ıoeoeや AEØa©ßØや apparent, i disagree with this view. The fact that it may be impossible for states and ı-2Ø°-2ı©-oeやa2©°±や2©やo°ØØや©-ややŁØR-ı2ı©-やŁ©Ø±や-©2やssØ-や2ae2や-©や-Ø32°oeやŁØR-ı2ı©-やı±や ¬©±±ıAEoeØ╆や*2やı±や¬©±±ıAEoeØ╇や*やAEØoeıØμØ╇や2©やŁØμØoe©¬ややŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や2ae2やı±やı-ŁØ¬Ø-ŁØ-2や from a particular political theory and that captures the moral importance of security. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 99 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 100 to assess how security is to be weighed against other political goals and what measures might increase security. *-や2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°や*やıssや2©や¬°©μıŁØや±3aaeややŁØR-ı2ı©-╆2や*-や2aeØやR°±2や±Øa2ı©-╇や*や¬°©¬©±Øや やŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEやı-ŁıμıŁ3oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や±や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや2aeØやa©-Łı2ı©-±や©OEやıŁØ-2ı21⁄2やむやや ß3oe2ıまOEaØ2ØŁやŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や2ae2やa¬23°Ø±や2aeØや¬ae1⁄2±ıaoe╇や¬±1⁄2aae©oe©oıaoeや-Łや moral aspects of security that form the basis of our common-sense intuitions about when we are and are not secure. in the second section, i consider what constitutes 2ae°Ø2±や2©や±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や±や*やaeμØやŁØR-ØŁやı2╇や-Łや1ae2やや±22Ø‒±やŁ32ıØ±や°Øやı-や°Øoe2ı©-や2©や the security of its citizens. in the third section, i analyse the connection between ±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や -Łや±22ØやoeØoı2ıssa1⁄2╆や*や °o3Øや2ae2や -1⁄2や¬oe3±ıAEoeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-や of national security must be grounded in the protection of the security of citizens, where security is understood as the security of the conditions of identity. in this view, protecting national security may justify the resort to violence only in order to protect the fundamental security of citizens. in addition, it is now widely believed that a state's legitimacy and its right to non-interference are connected to the duty of the state to protect the fundamental human rights of citizens, including the right to security. Thus, if a state fails to protect or itself threatens citizens' security, Ø1⁄42Ø°-oeやı-2Ø°μØ-2ı©-や2©や¬°©2Øa2やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±やss1⁄2やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁ╆ *-や 2aeØや R-oeや ±Øa2ı©-や ©OEや 2aeı±や aae¬2Ø°╇や *や a©-±ıŁØ°や 2aeØや ¬©±±ıAEıoeı21⁄2や 2ae2や 2aeØや ¬¬Øoeや to security may justify the resort to violence by non-state actors if those actors genuinely promote or protect citizens' security. We cannot ignore the possibility 2ae2や-©-ま±22Øや a2©°±やssıoae2やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやı-や°Ø±©°2ı-oや2©やμı©oeØ-aØや2©や¬°©2Øa2や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や of groups of citizens, particularly if the state is failing to provide protection or is itself threatening the security of those groups. 8ae2やı±や4Øa3°ı21⁄2′ 4Øa3°ı21⁄2や±やや¬©oeı2ıaoeやo©oeやa©3oeŁやaeμØや±ØμØ°oeやŁıTØ°Ø-2やıss±╆や'©oeoe©1ı-oや2aeØやae3ss-や security approach adopted by many contemporary critical security studies theorists and international organizations (see commission on human security 2003; %3UØoeŁや-Łや8ŁŁØoeoeやイーーカ《╇や-1⁄2や¬oe3±ıAEoeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やss3±2や°ØOEØ°や2©や2aeØや security of individual citizens. Understood in this sense, security policies are those policies that aim to protect or promote the security of a state's citizens, however security is understood. security policies could also refer to the security of sub-state communal groups, such as religious, ethnic or political communities. At the state level, national security could refer to the security of a state's political apparatus or institutions of government. But the referent of the term 'security' is only one part ©OEや2aeØや®3Ø±2ı©-╆や"±や%μıŁや#oeŁ1ı-や〉アケケキ╈やアキ《や °o3Ø±╇や -1⁄2やŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やss3±2や イや .1⁄2やıssやı-や2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°やı±や2©や©TØ°ややŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や2ae2やØ1⁄4¬oe©°Ø±や2aeØやıss¬oeıa2ı©-±や ©OEや2ae2やŁØR-ı2ı©-やOE©°や®3Ø±2ı©-±やAE©32や2aeØやss©°oeやł3±2ıRa2ı©-や©OEや¬©oeı2ıaoeやμı©oeØ-aØや2や2aeØや ±22Øや-Łや-©-ま±22Øや oeØμØoe±╆や&ß¬ı°ıaoeや®3Ø±2ı©-±やAE©32や 2aeØやa3°°Ø-2や ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や¬©oeıaıØ±や©OEや ŁıTØ°Ø-2や-2ı©-±や°ØやAEØ1⁄2©-Łや2aeØや±a©¬Øや©OEや2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°╆ 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 100 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 101 clarify 'the actor whose values are to be secured, the values concerned, the degree of security, the kinds of threats, the means for coping with such threats, the costs of doing so, and the relevant time period'. it is also worth noting that total security of any kind is not a realistic political goal. security is a relative state: individuals -Łや±22Ø±やss1⁄2やAEØやss©°Øや©°やoeØ±±や±Øa3°Øやı-やŁıTØ°Ø-2や°Ø±や©OEや¬3AEoeıaや-Łや¬°ıμ2ØやoeıOEØや (secure from crime, not secure from terrorism), but absolute security is impossible. *-ŁıμıŁ3oeや4Øa3°ı21⁄2 What is individual security and what conception of individual security should be the appropriate aim of state security policies? As Jeremy Waldron (2006: 463) °o3Ø±╇や-1⁄2や±Ø°ı©3±やa-ŁıŁ2ØやOE©°ややŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や±やや¬©oeı2ıaoeやo©oeやss3±2や2や least refer to basic physical safety – security from threats to physical well-being. A state that systematically and deliberately failed to protect citizens from the threat ©OEや¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeやmaøやOE°©ßや©2aeØ°やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±や-ŁやOE°©ßやØ1⁄42Ø°-oeやØ-ØssıØ±や1©3oeŁや°o3AEoe1⁄2や OEıoeや2©やssØØ2や2aeØやAE±ıaや°Ø®3ı°ØssØ-2±やOE©°や±22ØやoeØoı2ıssa1⁄2╆3 however, this conception of security (which Waldron (2006: 461) terms the 】¬3°Øや±OEØ21⁄2‒やaa©3-2《やı±やŁØRaıØ-2や±や-やaa©3-2や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やOE©°やae3ss-やAEØı-o±╆や#Øı-oや ±OEØやOE°©ßや¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeやmaøやı±やや-ØaØ±±°1⁄2やAE32や-©2や±3UaıØ-2やa©-Łı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╆や"±や Ken Booth (2006: 22) notes, 'security is not synonymous with survival. one can survive without being secure'. The conception of security as physical survival does not account for other important aspects of our common-sense notion of security. .Ø°Øoe1⁄2や AEØı-oや a3°°Ø-2oe1⁄2や OE°ØØや OE°©ßや 2aeØや 2ae°Ø2や ©OEや μı©oeØ-2や maøや1aeıoeØや ©-Ø‒±や OE323°Øや 1ØoeoeまAEØı-oやı±やOE°やOE°©ßや±±3°ØŁやı±やaØ°2ı-oe1⁄2や-©2や±3UaıØ-2や2©やØ-AEoeØや©-Øや2©やOEØØoeや±Øa3°Ø╆ A plausible conception of security for human persons must therefore take into account the characteristics of persons. Unlike other animal species, typical human persons are characterized by the ability to develop and form a coherent self-conception over time, as well as the ability to rationally assess goals and life ¬oe-±や〉(°ıU-やイーーア╈やウアーむウアア《╆や"±や%μıŁや7ØoeoeØss-や〉イーーー╈やウカウ《や°o3Ø±╇や2aeØやss©2ıμ2ı©-や 2©や±ØØや©3°±ØoeμØ±や±や3-ıRØŁやoØ-2±やむや±や】Ø1⁄4¬oeıaAEoeØや-Łや¬°ØŁıa2AEoeØ‒ – is necessary in 3 it is true that a state may sometimes deliberately place citizens in threatening situations, for example, when a state sends troops to war, without undermining state legitimacy. 5aeØやŁıTØ°Ø-aØやAEØ21ØØ-や2aeØ±Øやa±Ø±や-Łやa±Ø±や1aeØ°Øやや±22ØやOEıoe±や2©や¬°©2Øa2やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±やOE°©ßや 3-ł3±2やmaø±やOE°©ßや©2aeØ°やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±や©°やØ1⁄42Ø°-oeやØ-ØssıØ±や oeıØ±や ı-や2aeØや°Ø±©-やOE©°やØ1⁄4¬©±ı-oや aı2ı3⁄4Ø-±や2©や°ı±ø╆や"や±22ØやRoae2ı-oややł3±2や1°やı±や¬°©2Øa2ı-oや2aeØや±3°μıμoeや©OEや2aeØやa©ßss3-ı21⁄2╇や -Łや±©や°o3AEoe1⁄2や2aeØや±22Øやı±やł3±2ıRØŁやı-や°ı±øı-oや2aeØや±OEØ21⁄2や©OEやı-ŁıμıŁ3oeや±©oeŁıØ°±やı-や©°ŁØ°や to protect the survival of nation as a whole (although there are limits on the level of risk that soldiers may legitimately be exposed to – most military forces go to some lengths to protect soldiers from harm). in addition, most military forces today are volunteer forces, and so soldiers in those armies have consented to accept the risks associated with war. This would not apply to conscript military forces, however, and in that case i would °o3Øや2ae2やや±22Øや2ae2や3±Ø±ややa©-±a°ı¬2や°ß1⁄2や1©3oeŁや©-oe1⁄2やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやı-や2ae°Ø2Ø-ı-oや2aeØや safety of troops if doing so was necessary to protect to overall security or survival of the state. i thank an anonymous reviewer for encouraging me to clarify this point. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 101 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 102 order to make sense of our ordinary concept of an agent. Agents, as we ordinarily conceive of them, are more than creatures who use reason; they are 'causes rather than the mere vehicles of behaviour; they would be guided by the normative force ©OEや°Ø±©-±やOE©°やa2ı-o╉や-Łや2aeØ1⁄2や1©3oeŁやR-Łや±3aaeやOE©°aØやı-や¬°ı-aı¬oeØ±や°Ø®3ı°ı-oや2aeØssや to be moral' (Velleman 2000: 363). in other words, moral agents are those who are able to understand and act on moral reasons, and who are capable of seeing 2aeØss±ØoeμØ±や±や3-ıRØŁや±ØoeμØ±やØ1⁄4ı±2ı-oや©μØ°や2ıssØ╆ 4©やや¬oe3±ıAEoeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やOE©°やae3ss-やAEØı-o±やss3±2や2øØやı-2©やaa©3-2や what it means for beings such as ourselves to be secure. For creatures such as ourselves, whose lives revolve around future-oriented preferences and goals, security has a temporal as well as a physical component.4 We are unlikely to feel secure unless we believe that we can plan for the future with some assurance that the basic structure of our lives will remain intact over time – that our homes, our freedom and our families – what Waldron (2006: 466) calls 'our mode of life' – will not suddenly be taken from us. But what is important for our mode of life? As noted above, being secure must involve being free from the threat of physical harm. But economic and material security is also important to our sense of security (Waldron 2006: 462). Being secure from the threats of poverty, starvation and homelessness is essential ıOEや1Øや°Øや2©やOEØØoeやa©-RŁØ-2やı-や¬oe--ı-oやOE©°や©3°やOE323°Ø╆5 )©1ØμØ°╇や©3°や±Øa3°ı21⁄2やı±や-©2やł3±2ややssmØ°や©OEや©AEłØa2ıμØoe1⁄2や±±Ø±±ı-oや2aeØや°Øoe2ıμØや safety of the basic goods that we need in order to pursue our life plans. security also has a subjective component (Booth 2006: 22). security involves both an objective ±±Ø±±ßØ-2や©OEや2aeØや¬°©AEAEıoeı21⁄2や©OEやや±¬ØaıRaや2ae°Ø2や©aa3°°ı-oや-Łやoe±©や-やı-ŁıμıŁ3oe‒±や emotional or mental state relative to that threat, a state that may or may not aa3°2Øoe1⁄2や°ØSØa2や2aeØや©AEłØa2ıμØや±±Ø±±ßØ-2╆や8Øやss1⁄2やfeel more insecure in relation to ©-Øやøı-Łや©OEや2ae°Ø2╇や±3aaeや±や2aeØや2ae°Ø2や©OEやや2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø╇やØμØ-やıOEや2ae2や2ae°Ø2やı±やss3aaeや less likely to occur than many other threats to our physical safety, such as the threat posed by, for example, driving a car. so how we perceiveや©3°や±Øa3°ı21⁄2やss1⁄2やAEØ°やoeımoeØや relation to how physically secure we are, objectively speaking. Why is there this discrepancy between objective and subjective security? one way of explaining the discrepancy between objective and subjective security is in terms of the nature of the threats that we face. As Waldron (2006: 462) correctly notes, we tend to fear violent death or injury (particularly when due to intentional human action) to a greater extent than we fear death by water ©°や R°Øや ©°や ©2aeØ°や -23°oeや ØμØ-2±╆や 0-Øや ¬oe3±ıAEoeØや Ø1⁄4¬oe-2ı©-や OE©°や 2aeı±や ŁıTØ°Ø-aØや ı-や エや *-や aeı±や ŁØR-ı2ı©-や ©OEや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ±や 】-や ı-±2°3ssØ-2oeや μoe3Øや 2ae2や Ø-AEoeØ±や ¬Ø©¬oeØ〉±《や ±©ßØや opportunity to choose how to live' (Booth 2006: 23), Ken Booth recognizes the importance ©OEや2aeØやa¬aı21⁄2や2©やaae©©±Øや-Łや2©や¬oe-やOE©°やae3ss-やS©3°ı±aeı-o╆や)©1ØμØ°╇や#©©2aeやŁ©Ø±や-©2や explain what degree or kind of choice is necessary for security to be achieved. Unless we have some understanding of what kinds of life choices are necessary for human ±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や2aeı±やŁØR-ı2ı©-や°Øssı-±や2©©やμo3Ø╆や/©°やŁ©Ø±やaeı±やŁØR-ı2ı©-やa¬23°Øや2aeØやss©°oeや aspect of human security. オや 5ae3±╇や2aeØや$©ßssı±±ı©-や©-や)3ss-や4Øa3°ı21⁄2や〉イーーウ《やıŁØ-2ıRØ±やØa©-©ßıaや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇やaeØoe2ae╇や and education as central goods that are necessary to promote human security. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 102 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 103 our fear responses is that we fear malevolent harm more than we fear accidental harm. Karen Jones (2004: 10) describes this feature of human psychology. in her discussion of the impact of terrorism, she notes that our emotional reactions to ae°ßやa3±ØŁやAE1⁄2や±©ßØ©-Ø‒±やŁØoeıAEØ°2Øやa2ı©-±や°ØやμØ°1⁄2やŁıTØ°Ø-2やOE°©ßや©3°や°Ø±¬©-±Ø±や to harm caused by accidents, natural disasters or unintentional human actions. As she says: 'We are more likely to be psychologically devastated by harms caused by the active ill will on the part of other agents than by other kinds of harms ... There is also suggestive empirical evidence that post-traumatic stress is more likely to follow from sudden man-made violence than natural disaster' (2004: 11). 5aeı±や Ø1⁄4¬oeı-±や1ae1⁄2や 2aeØや °-Ł©ßや -23°Øや ©OEや 2Ø°°©°ı±2や maø±や 〉OE°©ßや 2aeØや μıa2ıss±‒や ¬Ø°±¬Øa2ıμØ《や a©-2°ıAE32Ø±や 2©や 2aeØや OEØ°や ±3aaeや maø±や a3±Ø╇や ±や 1Øoeoeや ±や 2aeØや ±Ø-±Øや ©OEや powerless and lack of control that victims experience. There is nothing a potential μıa2ıssやa-やŁ©や2©やμ©ıŁやや2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø╇や±やaeØや©°や±aeØやa--©2やø-©1や1aeØ°Øや-Łや1aeØ-や -やmaøやssıoae2や©aa3°╆ Jones argues that random acts of violence can undermine what she calls 'basal ±Øa3°ı21⁄2‒やむや2aeØや3-°2ıa3oe2ØŁやTØa2ıμØや±Ø-±Øや©OEや±OEØ21⁄2や-Łや2°3±2や2ae°©3oaeや1aeıaaeや1Øや (sometimes unconsciously) judge and assess risks. An individual's level of basal security 'shapes the agent's perception of those reasons that she has that concern risk and vulnerability where such risk and vulnerability arise from the actions of others' (Jones 2004: 15). Jones' account describes this phenomenon clearly, but it is less clear why malevolent harm undermines our basal security so severely. i ±3ooØ±2や2ae2やssoeØμ©oeØ-2やmaø±や3-ŁØ°ßı-Øや©3°やAE±oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やAEØa3±Øや±3aaeやmaø±や undermine what i shall call our moral securityやむや©3°やAEØoeıØOEや2ae2や1ØやssmØ°╇やss©°oeoe1⁄2や speaking; our belief that we have intrinsic moral value that limits what others may legitimately do to us. i am not suggesting that we consciously hold this belief as we go about our everyday activities. instead, our reactions to malevolent harm suggest that we implicitly hold such a belief in relation to our interactions with and expectations of other people. We typically go about our everyday lives assuming that we have some degree of control over what happens to us, that other people are not intending to harm us, that other people will respect us in the sense of recognizing that it would be ±Ø°ı©3±oe1⁄2や1°©-oや2©やae3°2や3±╇や-Łや2ae2や©3°やı-2Ø°Ø±2±や-Łや©3°やŁØ±ı°Ø±やssmØ°╆や4©やıOEや1Øや °Øやμıa2ıss±や©OEややμı©oeØ-2やmaøやOE°©ßや-©2aeØ°や¬Ø°±©-╇や2aeı±や°Łıaoeoe1⁄2や±aeøØ±や©3°やAEØoeıØOEや in our own moral worth – the belief that others may not use us as a mere means to their ends. The wrongdoer has demonstrated to us in the most vivid way that 2aeØ1⁄2やŁ©や-©2や±ØØや3±や±やss©°oeoe1⁄2やıss¬©°2-2╉や2ae2や©3°や¬ı-や-Łや©3°や±3TØ°ı-oや°ØやoeØ±±や important than their desires. 5aeı±や oe©±±や©OEや OEı2aeや ı-や©3°やAE±ıaやss©°oeや1©°2aeやa-やaeμØや¬°©OE©3-Łやa©-±Ø®3Ø-aØ±╆や 0-aØやmaøØŁ╇や1Øやss1⁄2やAEØoeıØμØや2ae2や1Øやa-や-©やoe©-oØ°や2°3±2や©2aeØ°や¬Ø©¬oeØやむや2aeØやAE±ıaや security of our everyday lives can seem like an illusion. Victims of serious physical maø±や©OE2Ø-や°Ø¬©°2や±3aaeややoe©±±や©OEやOEı2aeやı-や©2aeØ°±や-Łや-や©-o©ı-oやı-AEıoeı21⁄2や2©や2°3±2や other people (see Brison 2002). Where once we felt secure in our self-worth, now we can no longer be sure that other people will treat us with the respect that we once took for granted. The basic fabric of our moral security has been destroyed. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 103 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 104 This analysis of moral security suggests that security for human persons is a multi-faceted state involving objective facts about our relative physical, economic and material safety, our subjective interpretations of those threats and the strength ©OEや©3°やAEØoeıØOEや2ae2や1ØやssmØ°╇やss©°oeoe1⁄2や±¬Øøı-o╆や*やßや±Øa3°Ø╇や ı-や2aeı±や±Ø-±Ø╇や ıOEや *やßや able to go about my life without fearing the loss of my life, property, economic and material goods, and without fearing that i will be treated in ways that ignore or undermine my basic moral standing. only when i am secure in this sense will i be able to develop and express my identity as a person. For this reason, i refer to this conception of security as the security of the conditions of identity. The term 'identity' a¬23°Ø±や2aeØや°ØoeØμ-aØや©OEや2aeØ±ØやŁıTØ°Ø-2や ±¬Øa2±や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や2©や©3°やa¬aı21⁄2や2©やŁØμØoe©¬や our self-conception as persons. security of the conditions of identity therefore refers 2©や2ae©±ØやAE±ıaやo©©Ł±やむやAE©2aeや©AEłØa2ıμØや-Łや±3AEłØa2ıμØやむや2ae2や ı-ŁıμıŁ3oe±や°Ø®3ı°Øや ı-や order to develop and sustain a coherent self-conception over time.6 This conception of security does not imply that individuals are only secure if they are able to express every possible aspect of their identity or actively pursue any life-plan they wish. nor does it imply that security policies must actively support ©°や Ø-a©3°oØや ±¬ØaıRaや Ø1⁄4¬°Ø±±ı©-±や©OEや ıŁØ-2ı21⁄2╆や *-±2ØŁ╇や ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや 2aeØや a©-Łı2ı©-±や of identity refers to the security of a set of basic conditions that, combined, allow ı-ŁıμıŁ3oe±や2aeØや¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeや±OEØ21⁄2や-ŁやAE±ıaやss©°oeや±2-Łı-oや2aeØ1⁄2や°Ø®3ı°Øやı-や©°ŁØ°や2©や develop as persons, regardless of the content of their individual self-conceptions.7 The importance of the conditions of identity to human persons is recognized by many theorists. most liberal political philosophers, for example, recognize the importance of allowing individuals to exercise their autonomy and cultivate new ways of living (see mill (1912) 2002). however, by incorporating the conditions of ıŁØ-2ı21⁄2やı-や2aeØやssØ-ı-oや©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇やss1⁄2や aa©3-2や©TØ°±や や-Ø1や¬Ø°±¬Øa2ıμØや©-や±Øa3°ı21⁄2や 2ae2やae±や±ØμØ°oeや±ıo-ıRa-2やŁμ-2oØ±や©μØ°やss©°Øや±ıss¬oeı±2ıaやaa©3-2±や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╆ First, my account enables us to explain why a state that subjected its citizens to a campaign of psychological fear, yet fed and clothed them and provided them with police and military protection, would be undermining its citizens' security even though their basic physical security was assured. in the next section, i clarify the connection between my account of security and a state's duties to its citizens, but OE©°や-©1やı2やı±や±3UaıØ-2や2©や-©2Øや2ae2やss1⁄2やaa©3-2や¬Ø°ßı2±ややAE°©ŁØ°や3-ŁØ°±2-Łı-oや©OEや how state (and non-state) actions may violate and threaten human security. This, ±や*や1ıoeoeやØ1⁄4¬oeı-やı-や2aeØやR-oeや±Øa2ı©-や©OEや2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°╇やae±やıss¬©°2-2やıss¬oeıa2ı©-±やOE©°や a©-aØ¬2ı©-±や©OEや±22ØやoeØoı2ıssa1⁄2や-Łやł3±2ıRa2ı©-±やOE©°や2aeØや°Ø±©°2や2©や¬©oeı2ıaoeやμı©oeØ-aØ╆ second, my account provides a starting point from which to begin analysing the connection between security and liberty – two values that have often been portrayed ı-やa©-Sıa2や1ı2aeやØaaeや©2aeØ°やı-やŁØAE2Ø±や AE©32や2aeØやRoae2や oı-±2や2Ø°°©°ı±ßや〉±ØØや8oeŁ°©-や イーーカ《╆や-ıAEØ°21⁄2や ı±や-Øı2aeØ°や ıŁØ-2ıaoeや-©°や °ØŁ3aıAEoeØや 2©や ±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や ±や *やaeμØやŁØR-ØŁや ı2╆や 6 Thus, my account is consistent with but more conservative than that of Booth (2006) ı-や2ae2や*やŁØR-Øや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やAE1⁄2や°ØOEØ°Ø-aØや2©や2aeØや¬°©2Øa2ı©-や©OEや2aeØやAE±ıaやo©©Ł±や-ØaØ±±°1⁄2やOE©°や ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや ıŁØ-2ı21⁄2╇や °2aeØ°や 2ae-や 〉±や#©©2aeやŁ©Ø±《やŁØR-ı-oや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ı-や -や©¬Ø-まØ-ŁØŁや fashion as 'the possibility to explore human becoming' (2006: 22). 7 As such, my account does not presuppose a racially or culturally homogeneous state. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 104 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 105 however, some forms of liberty, such as freedom of association and freedom of speech, are connected to the development and expression of personal identity. Arguably, the value of freedom of association and freedom of speech derives from the connection of these freedoms to the security of persons, and so may not be ±2°ıoae2OE©°1°Łoe1⁄2や 2°ŁØŁや©Tやoı-±2や 2aeØや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや¬Ø°±©-±╆や5ae3±╇や OE°ØØŁ©ßや-Łや security do not stand in clear opposition to each other and may not be balanced oı-±2や©°や2°ŁØŁや©Tやoı-±2やØaaeや©2aeØ°やı-やや±ıss¬oeı±2ıaやOE±aeı©-╆や6-ŁØ°やss1⁄2やŁØR-ı2ı©-や of security, some restrictions of liberties (for example, restrictions on freedom of religion or freedom of association) might count as undermining security if those restrictions seriously undermined the ability of individuals to form and develop a sustained self-conception or undermined their basic moral standing. so a further advantage of my account is that it provides a theoretical basis for understanding which liberties are central to security and when restrictions of liberties would undermine security. This can then provide a framework for examining the validity ©OEやa©3-2Ø°ま2Ø°°©°ı±ßやoeØoı±oe2ı©-や-Łや¬©oeıaıØ±や2ae2や°ØやaoeıssØŁや2©やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやAE1⁄2や2aeØや need to balance liberty against security. Third, my account illuminates the connection between individual security and the security of sub-state groups such as religious and ethnic communities. security of the conditions of identity is connected to communal security in two ways. First, our assessment of our moral standing depends to some extent on how integrated or secure we believe our community to be – where 'community' could refer to anything from a geographically bounded community such as a small village or a large metropolis to what Benedict Anderson (2006) calls an 'imagined community' such as a nation.8 We often identify ourselves by reference to our membership ©OEや a©ßss3-ı2ıØ±や 2ae2や °ØやŁØR-ØŁやAE1⁄2や ±ae°ØŁやμoe3Ø±や 〉±3aaeや±や °Øoeıoı©3±や©°や¬©oeı2ıaoeや values), as well as by reference to physically located communities. We are more likely to feel morally secure when we believe that our relationships with others in our community are governed by shared moral and social norms. if we come to AEØoeıØμØや2ae2や2aeØやa©ßss3-ı2ıØ±や1ı2aeや1ae©ßや1ØやaeμØやıŁØ-2ıRØŁやŁ©や-©2や±ae°Øや©3°やss©°oeや and social norms, we may feel deeply insecure – our trust in our moral standing 1ıoeoeやaeμØやAEØØ-や3-ŁØ°ßı-ØŁ╆や"±や-©2ØŁやØ°oeıØ°╇や©-Øや©OEや2aeØや°Ø±©-±や1ae1⁄2やμı©oeØ-2やmaøや is so disruptive on the victim's sense of trust and security is that it throws into stark °ØoeıØOEやae©1やØ±ıoe1⁄2や©3°やAEØoeıØOEやı-や©3°やss©°oeや±2-Łı-oやa-やAEØや±aemØ°ØŁや-Łやae©1やOE°oıoeØや is our faith in the commitment of others to shared moral norms. second, our self-conception is intimately connected to our relationships with our close friends and family, and the communities (religious, political, social) with which we identify. even if we do not endorse the communitarian belief that クや "aa©°Łı-oや 2©や "-ŁØ°±©-や 〉イーーカ╈や カ《╇や ©3°や ıŁØ-2ıRa2ı©-や 1ı2aeや 2aeØや -2ı©-や ı±や 】ıssoı-ØŁ‒や because 'members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellowmembers, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion'. The same could also apply to religious communities and political communities (for example, one might identify as a member of the catholic community or as part of the communist community without ever meeting the vast majority of catholics or communists). 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 105 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 106 2aeØや±ØoeOEや ı±やOE©°ßØŁや¬°ıss°ıoe1⁄2や2ae°©3oaeやıŁØ-2ıRa2ı©-や1ı2aeやa©ßss3-ı2ıØ±や〉±ØØや4-ŁØoeや 1981; Taylor 1985), it is certainly true that our identities are closely linked with those communities that we are part of. We experience ourselves not as atomistic individuals but as embedded in a web of relationships that contribute to (without being reducible to) our self-conception and, to an extent, colour how we express our identities through our everyday activities. so, in order for us to form a coherent selfconception, we must be able to be part of communities. community security, while clearly distinct from the security of the individuals within a community, therefore has moral value that is derived from the moral value of individual security. As such, ensuring the security of communities is an important moral good and a legitimate focus of a state's security policies.9 such security protects the ability of communities to form and sustain shared moral, religious or other values believed to be important by community members, subject to the constraint that a community's activities do not seriously harm community members and/or other citizens. however, the connection between individual security and community security Ł©Ø±や-©2やØ-2ıoeや2ae2や oeoeや±3AEま±22Øやa©ßss3-ı2ıØ±やaeμØや -やØ®3oeやaoeıssや2©や¬°©2Øa2ı©-やOE°©ßや threats to their cohesion and integrity. First, as noted above, a community's moral value is connected to how well it treats members of the community. Arguably, a a©ßss3-ı21⁄2や2ae2やssı±2°Ø2ØŁや ı2±やssØssAEØ°±や1©3oeŁや-©2やAEØや ł3±2ıRØŁやı-やaoeıssı-oや±22Øや protection from threats to its existence and might be a legitimate subject of state interference and restrictions (chambers 2002). second, communities that pose a serious threat to non-members (for example, White supremacist groups in the Us 1ae©やmaøや"OE°ıa-ま"ßØ°ıa-やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±《やa©3oeŁやoeØoı2ıss2Øoe1⁄2やAEØや±3AEłØa2や2©や°Ø±2°ıa2ı©-±や even if they treat their own members well. But there is an important distinction between individuals within a community who pose a danger to others and dangerous communities. muslim terrorists are dangerous individuals, but the existence of ±3aaeやı-ŁıμıŁ3oe±やŁ©Ø±や-©2や¬°©μıŁØやや±3UaıØ-2や°Ø±©-や2©やa©-aoe3ŁØや2ae2や2aeØや.3±oeıssや community is therefore a dangerous community. White supremacist communities, on the other hand, encourage violence towards others through cultivating shared norms and beliefs that support such violence (Berlet and Vysotsky 2006). Thus, they are dangerous communities even if they do not threaten the security of their own members and even if not all individual members of the community are dangerous. in summary, the connection between individual security and community provides a strong prima facie reason for states to protect the integrity of communities within their boundaries when those communities form an important part of the self-conception of their members and when those communities do not pose a threat to the security of members and/or non-members. The security of communities should therefore be an important goal of the security policies of states. ケや $©-μØ°±Øoe1⁄2╇や 2aeØや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや a©ßss3-ı2ıØ±や a-やAEØやae°ßØŁやAE1⁄2や±22Øや¬©oeıaıØ±や 2ae2やmaøや citizens on the basis of community membership. For example, the security of muslim communities in the UK was arguably undermined by counter-terrorism measures that treated the community as a 'suspect community' (hillyard 1993; pantazis and 1ØssAEØ°2©-やイーーケ《╆や#--ı-oや°Øoeıoı©3±や¬°a2ıaØ±╇やAE--ı-oや±¬ØaıRaやa3oe23°oeや¬°a2ıaØ±や-Łや AE--ı-oや2aeØや3±Øや©OEや±¬ØaıRaやoe-o3oØ±や1©3oeŁやoe±©やAEØやmaø±や©-やa©ßss3-ı21⁄2や±Øa3°ı21⁄2╆ 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 106 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 107 5ae°Ø2±や2©や4Øa3°ı21⁄2や-Łや%32ıØ±や©OEや2aeØや422Ø 8ae2や$©3-2±や±やや5ae°Ø2や2©や4Øa3°ı21⁄2′ We are now in a position to consider threats to security. given the importance of basic physical safety, it is uncontroversial that individual security will be threatened by Ø1⁄42Ø°-oeやmaø±や±3aaeや±やı-μ±ı©-±や©°や2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø±╇や±や1Øoeoeや±やAE1⁄2やı-2Ø°-oeやa°ıssı-oeや violence. however, security of the conditions of identity also incorporates subjective security (how secure we feel ourselves to be) and moral security (the security of our belief in our moral standing). What would threaten these aspects of security? We feel secure when we believe ourselves to be safe from harm, particularly malevolent harm, and we feel morally secure when we believe ourselves to have moral worth in the eyes of those around us. As i explained earlier, malevolent violent maø±や2ae°Ø2Ø-やss©°oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や±や1Øoeoeや±や¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇やAE32やss©°oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やa-や also be threatened in more subtle ways. Discriminatory policies can undermine the moral security of those individuals who are the targets of such policies, particularly when such policies are long-standing and deeply ingrained in a community, thereby ±ıo-ıRa-2oe1⁄2やoe2Ø°ı-oや2aeØやmı23ŁØ±や-ŁやAEØaeμı©3°や©OEやa©ßss3-ı21⁄2やssØssAEØ°±╆や3aı±2╇や sexist, homophobic or ageist policies communicate to the subjects of those policies the message that they are intrinsically inferior – morally, socially and physically – simply because they are members of a particular group. in extreme cases, discriminatory ¬©oeıaıØ±やa-やoeØŁや2©やŁØ-ıoeや©OEや2aeØや±3AEłØa2±‒やae3ss-ı21⁄2╇や1ı2aeやŁØμ±22ı-oやa©-±Ø®3Ø-aØ±や OE©°や2aeØı°や±ØoeOEま1©°2aeや-ŁやıŁØ-2ı21⁄2╆や1°ıss©や-ØμıやØoe©®3Ø-2oe1⁄2やŁØ±a°ıAEØ±や2aeØやŁØμ±22ı©-や©OEや self-identity that results from being treated in an extremely dehumanizing manner: 'imagine now a man who is deprived of everyone he loves, and at the same time of his house, his habits, his clothes, in short, of everything he possesses: he will be a ae©oeoe©1やss-╇や°ØŁ3aØŁや2©や±3TØ°ı-oや-Łや-ØØŁ±╇やOE©°oØ2OE3oeや©OEやŁıo-ı21⁄2や-Łや°Ø±2°ı-2╇やOE©°や he who loses all often easily loses himself' (1987: 33). so moral security can be threatened by state actions and policies aimed at particular groups or individuals believed to be intrinsically inferior. such policies, 3-ŁØ°やss1⁄2や aa©3-2╇や±ae©3oeŁやAEØや3-ŁØ°±2©©Łや ±や maø±や©-や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや2aeØやa©-Łı2ı©-±や of identity. our sense of security is also strongly shaped by how we perceive threats to our well-being, even if the likelihood of those threats eventuating is statistically very small. This means that our security can be threatened if we are led to believe that 1Øやssıoae2やAEØやmaøØŁ╇やØμØ-やıOEや2aeØや¬°©AEAEıoeı21⁄2や©OEや-やmaøや©aa3°°ı-oやı±やa23oeoe1⁄2や®3ı2Øや small. so citizens' subjective security can be undermined if government statements, media reports and other public reports misrepresent or seriously exaggerate the oeıøØoeıae©©Łや ©OEや や ±¬ØaıRaや 2ae°Ø2や ©aa3°°ı-o╆や '©°や Ø1⁄4ß¬oeØ╇や や アケクキや64や ±3°μØ1⁄2や OE©3-Łや that 68–80 per cent of those surveyed believed that terrorism was a 'serious' or 】Ø1⁄42°ØssØ‒や 2ae°Ø2╇や ØμØ-や 2ae©3oaeや 2aeØや ¬°©AEAEıoeı21⁄2や ©OEや や 2Ø°°©°ı±2や maøや ©aa3°°ı-oや 2や 2ae2や2ıssØや1±やssı-ı±a3oeØや-Łや2aeØ°ØやaeŁやAEØØ-や-©や2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø±やAE1⁄2やOE©°Øıo-Ø°±や©-や "ßØ°ıa-や±©ıoeや〉+aø±©-やイーーオ╈やケオ╇やケクむアーウ《╆や4ı-aØや2aeØや2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø±や©OEやアアや4Ø¬2ØssAEØ°や 2001, a similar discrepancy between the perception of the threat of terrorism -Łや 2aeØや a23oeや oeıøØoeıae©©Łや©OEや -やmaøやae±やŁØμØoe©¬ØŁや 〉.3ØoeoeØ°や イーーカ《╆や"OE2Ø°や ケのアア╇や 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 107 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 108 ±ØμØ°oeや64や¬3AEoeıaや ©Uaıoe±やssŁØや ±22ØssØ-2±や¬©°2°1⁄2ı-oや 2Ø°°©°ı±ßや±や -や ©-o©ı-oや and omnipresent threat that might strike at any moment with terrifying force. For Ø1⁄4ß¬oeØ╇や2aeØや2aeØ-や$aeı°ß-や©OEや2aeØや+©ı-2や$aeıØOE±や©OEや42T╇や$©oeı-や1©1Øoeoe╇や±22ØŁや2ae2╈や 'even as i speak, terrorists are planning appalling crimes and trying to get their ae-Ł±や©-や1Ø¬©-±や©OEやss±±やŁØ±2°3a2ı©-‒や〉+aø±©-やイーーオ╈やアーエ《╇やOE©°ßØ°や64や"m©°-Ø1⁄2や general John Ashcroft claimed that: 'Terrorism is a clear and present danger to Americans today', and former Department of state coordinator for counterterrorism cofer Black announced: 'The threat of international terrorism knows no boundaries' (Jackson 2005: 100). combined with extensive media coverage of terrorism, statements such as these, which are not supported by clear evidence, can seriously undermine citizens' subjective security (mueller 2006; Wolfendale 2007). 4Øa3°ı21⁄2や-Łや2aeØや%32ıØ±や©OEや2aeØや422Ø i have argued that security of the conditions of identity can be threatened by ¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeやmaø±╇やŁı±a°ıssı-2ı©-や-Łや2aeØやAEØoeıØOEや2ae2やssoeØμ©oeØ-2やμı©oeØ-2やmaø±や°Øや imminent. What does this analysis of threats to security imply about a state's duties in relation to the security of its citizens? A growing number of scholars, politicians and international organizations argue that states have a 'Responsibility to protect' their own citizens (Bellamy 2010; iciss 2001). According to this doctrine, states that fail to protect or actively threaten the basic physical security of their citizens (for example, through the use of torture,10 extra-judicial executions and other serious human rights abuse) have lost the right to non-interference that for many years was central to a state-based view of international relations (see Altman and Wellman 2008; coady 2002; Waldron 2006). The responsibility to protect doctrine was unanimously adopted by the heads of ±22Øや-Łやo©μØ°-ßØ-2や2や2aeØやイーーオや6/や8©°oeŁや43ssssı2や-Łや°ØまU°ßØŁや21ıaØやAE1⁄2や2aeØや Un security council (Bellamy 2010: 143). Together with the rise in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations over the last 20 years, this points to an increasing international consensus that a state's right to sovereignty is not absolute, but rests to an important degree on whether the state is protecting the basic rights of its citizens.11 so the claim that states have a duty to protect the physical safety of their citizens and the integrity of the communities within their borders is now relatively uncontroversial. it is more controversial but certainly not outrageous to argue that states also have a duty to provide their citizens with basic material and economic 10 The prohibition against torture is a peremptory norm that is binding on all states °Øo°ŁoeØ±±や©OEや1aeØ2aeØ°や2aeØ1⁄2やaeμØや±ıo-ØŁや±¬ØaıRaや2°Ø2ıØ±や°Øoe2ı-oや2©や2©°23°Øや〉±ØØや'©©2やイーーカ《╆ 11 not all states accept this belief, however. According to the international coalition for Responsibility to protect (icRtop), at the Un general Assembly's 63rd session in 2009: 'A handful of member states rejected the use of coercive action in any circumstance ... yet far more states were of the view that, should other measures have failed, coercive action and even the use of force is warranted by the Un charter to save lives' (icRtop イーーケ《╆や&1⁄4a2oe1⁄2や1ae2やOE©°ß±や©OEやØ1⁄42Ø°-oeやı-2Ø°OEØ°Ø-aØや°Øやł3±2ıRØŁやı±やや±Ø¬°2Øや®3Ø±2ı©-╆や 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 108 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 109 ±Øa3°ı21⁄2やAE1⁄2╇やOE©°やØ1⁄4ß¬oeØ╇や©TØ°ı-oや±©ßØやOE©°ß±や©OEや1ØoeOE°Øや©°や©2aeØ°や¬°©2Øa2ı©-±や oı-±2や oeıOEØ‒±やμıaı±±ı23ŁØ±や〉$©ßssı±±ı©-や©-や)3ss-や4Øa3°ı21⁄2やイーーウ《╆や)©1ØμØ°╇や2aeØや®3Ø±2ı©-や©OEや whether states have a duty to protect or promote the subjective and moral security of their citizens is largely unexplored. i argue that such a duty exists and forms part of the state's fundamental duty to protect the basic rights of its citizens. 422Ø±╇や2©ややoe°oØやØ1⁄42Ø-2╇やØ1⁄4Ø°aı±Øや±ıo-ıRa-2やa©-2°©oeや©μØ°やae©1や2aeØı°や¬©¬3oe2ı©-±や perceive threats to their safety. how a state chooses to portray the seriousness of aØ°2ı-や2ae°Ø2±╇や±3aaeや ±や2aeØや2ae°Ø2や©OEや2Ø°°©°ı±ß╇や1ıoeoeや±2°©-ooe1⁄2や TØa2やae©1や±OEØや2aeØや±22Ø‒±や citizens believe themselves to be. As i have argued elsewhere (Wolfendale 2007), states that depict the threat of terrorism, for example, as all-pervasive, constant and a threat to the very foundation of society can do more to spread the fear of terrorism 2ae-や2Ø°°©°ı±2や a2±や2aeØss±ØoeμØ±╆や5aeØ°ØOE©°Ø╇や*や °o3Øや2ae2や±22Ø±やaeμØや やŁ321⁄2や-©2や2©やı-S2Øや or exaggerate threats to the safety of citizens, particularly if such exaggeration is then used to justify changes to civil liberties.12 states have a duty to realistically assess threat levels and to present information to citizens in a way that is sensitive to the impact of threat assessments on the subjective security of citizens.13 it is less obvious that states have a duty to protect or promote citizens' moral security in the sense that i have outlined earlier. states do not have a duty to ensure 2ae2やoeoeや 2aeØı°やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±やR°ßoe1⁄2やAEØoeıØμØや2ae2や2aeØ1⁄2や°Øやss©°oeoe1⁄2やμoe3AEoeØやむや±3aaeややŁ321⁄2や would be both unrealistic and far too demanding. however, states do have a duty not to endorse or implement discriminatory policies that will seriously undermine the self-worth and identity of the subjects of those policies, and a duty to take positive steps to prevent and punish extreme discrimination. protecting the security of the conditions of identity therefore involves three aspects: protecting citizens' physical safety; protecting citizens' subjective security; and protecting citizens' ability to see themselves as having basic moral standing in the eyes of their community. )μı-oや Ø±2AEoeı±aeØŁや や ŁØR-ı2ı©-や ©OEや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や 2ae2や Ø-a©ß¬±±Ø±や 2aeØや ŁıTØ°Ø-2や aspects of human identity, i shall now turn to the relationship between individual ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や -Łや -2ı©-oeや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や AEØOE©°Øや a©-±ıŁØ°ı-oや 2aeØや ®3Ø±2ı©-や ©OEや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ±や や ł3±2ıRa2ı©-やOE©°や¬©oeı2ıaoeやμı©oeØ-aØ╆ 12 This does not imply that states should intentionally lie to citizens and encourage them to believe that they are safe when in fact they are under serious threat, or that states should pander to those citizens whose fears are irrational (Waldron 2006: 468). paternalistic 1ı2aeae©oeŁı-oや©OEや2aeØや2°32aeや1©3oeŁやAEØや やμı©oe2ı©-や©OEや 32©-©ß1⁄2や -Łや1©3oeŁや2ae3±やAEØや3-ł3±2ıRØŁ╆や 13や )©1や2aeı±やŁ321⁄2や1©3oeŁやAEØやØ-OE©°aØŁやı±や-やıss¬©°2-2や®3Ø±2ı©-や-Łや©-Øや2ae2や°Ø®3ı°Ø±やss©°Øや mØ-2ı©-や2ae2や*やa-やoıμØやı2やı-や2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°╆や*や1©3oeŁや±3ooØ±2や2ae2╇やoeıøØや2aeØやŁ321⁄2や©OEや±22Ø±や2©や ¬°©2Øa2や2aeØı°やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±‒やAE±ıaや¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeや±OEØ21⁄2╇や2aeı±やŁ321⁄2や1©3oeŁや°Ø®3ı°ØやØ1⁄42Ø°-oeやss©-ı2©°ı-oや 2©やØ-a©3°oØやa©ß¬oeı-aØや〉OE©°aı-oやa©ß¬oeı-aØやı±ややŁıTØ°Ø-2やssmØ°╇や±やı±やaoeØ°やOE°©ßや2aeØや general failure to enforce the international prohibitions against torture). organizations such as human Rights Watch could report on the media and government publications ©OEやŁıTØ°Ø-2や±22Ø±╇や-Łやı-2Ø°-2ı©-oeや¬°Ø±±3°Øやa©3oeŁやAEØやAE°©3oae2や2©やAEØ°や©-や±22Ø±や2ae2や systematically deceived their populations. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 109 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 110 /2ı©-oeや4Øa3°ı21⁄2╇や422Øや-Øoı2ıssa1⁄2や-Łや1©oeı2ıaoeや7ı©oeØ-aØ national security is a term that is used with abandon in political discourse. yet it is often unclear what the term 'national security' is intended to refer to or how ±¬ØaıRaや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や¬©oeıaıØ±やØı2aeØ°やØ-ae-aØや©°や 2ae°Ø2Ø-や-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2╆や"±や"°-©oeŁや Wolfers (1952: 481) noted, this lack of clarity means that a statesman can easily ı-μ©øØや-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や】2©やoeAEØoeや1ae2ØμØ°や¬©oeıa1⁄2やaeØやOEμ©3°±や1ı2aeや-やm°a2ıμØや-Łや possibly deceptive name'. in the context of debates about political violence, national security must refer to a good, the protection of which would justify the resort to force. This means 2ae2や -1⁄2や ¬oe3±ıAEoeØや ŁØR-ı2ı©-や ©OEや -2ı©-oeや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や ß3±2や a°°1⁄2や ±ıo-ıRa-2や ß©°oeや weight. We must not accept the current freewheeling use of the term in debates in international relations and politics. 8ae2やı±や/2ı©-oeや4Øa3°ı21⁄2′ "やo©©Łや¬oeaØや2©や±2°2や1aeØ-や2aeı-øı-oやAE©32や-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やı±や2aeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEやや nation. As the term is typically employed in debates about political violence, 'nation' °ØOEØ°±や-©2や2©やや±¬ØaıRaやØ2ae-ıaや©°や¬©oeı2ıaoeやa©ßss3-ı21⁄2╇やAE32や°2aeØ°や2©や©-Øや¬°2ıa3oe°や form of political community: the state, understood as the system of government over a designated geopolitical region (luban 1980: 168). given this conception of 2aeØや-2ı©-╇やや¬©±±ıAEoeØやŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や1©3oeŁや°ØOEØ°や2©や2aeØや±OEØ21⁄2や-Łや integrity of a state's political apparatus – the institutions that together make up the OE3-a2ı©-ı-oや©OEや2aeØや±22Øや〉8oeŁ°©-やイーーカ╈やエカー《╆や)©1ØμØ°╇や±3aaeややŁØR-ı2ı©-や1©3oeŁやOEıoeや to justify the use of political violence in defence of national security, since there is no necessary correlation between the security of a state's institutional apparatus and how well that apparatus protects the security of the citizens of that state. A totalitarian dictatorship may have secure institutional apparatus, and yet at the same time torture and murder its citizens. Thus, protecting national security so ŁØR-ØŁやa©3oeŁや-©2やł3±2ıOE1⁄2や2aeØや°Ø±©°2や2©や¬©oeı2ıaoeやμı©oeØ-aØや±ı-aØやや±22Ø‒±やı-±2ı232ı©-oeや apparatus does not have intrinsic moral value that is independent from how ØTØa2ıμØoe1⁄2や2ae2や¬¬°23±やOE3-a2ı©-±や2©や¬°©2Øa2やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±‒やAE±ıaや°ıoae2±╆ national security should therefore not simply refer to the relative safety of a particular political entity. The term 'national security' must retain its normative force. As William Bain argues: individual security is assumed to follow from national security by virtue of our membership in a particular political community. Thus national security presupposes the assumption that states express something worth preserving: they are moral communities in their own right and, as such, they are entitled and competent to determine the nature of their security interests and how best to address them. (2001: 278) 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 110 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 111 Bain is correct to link national security to individual security, but he has the connection backwards. The value of individual security does not derive from the value of national security; the moral value of national security derives from the moral importance of individual security. promoting national security only counts as a moral good if protecting national security genuinely protects the security of citizens. Thus, a state's right to self-defence, as enshrined in the Un charter (Bain 2001: 278) can only be understood as a moral right if it is defence of the citizens of the state. if the goal of promoting national security is to justify the use of extreme violence, then it must refer to the protection of a substantive moral good. The moral good protected by states is most plausibly understood as the lives of the citizens of 2ae©±Øや±22Ø±╆や5aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや2aeØや±22Øやı±や2aeØ°ØOE©°ØやAEØ±2や2ae©3oae2や©OEや ±や2aeØやss©±2やØTØa2ıμØや way of protecting the security of the individual citizens.14や5aeı±やoemØ°やı-2Ø°¬°Ø22ı©-や of national security reduces the likelihood that there could be a genuine moral a©-Sıa2やAEØ21ØØ-や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや2aeØや±22Øや-Łや2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±╆や*-やŁŁı2ı©-╇や this interpretation is consistent with the widely accepted belief that the resort to 1°や ı±や©-oe1⁄2や ł3±2ıRØŁや ı-や©°ŁØ°や 2©やŁØOEØ-Łやや-2ı©-や OE°©ßやØ1⁄42Ø°-oeやmaøや 〉±3AEłØa2や 2©や the constraints of the principles of proportionality and last resort)15 where this is typically interpreted as defence of the nation's integrity as a geopolitical entity, and hence defence of the lives and basic rights of the nation's citizens.16 in traditional just war theory, the use of military aggression to defend national interests (as opposed 2©や-2ı©-oeや±3°μıμoe《╇や±3aaeや±や2°ŁØやı-2Ø°Ø±2±や©°や±¬aeØ°Ø±や©OEや¬©oeı2ıaoeやı-S3Ø-aØ╇やı±や-©2や considered a just cause for war (see Walzer 2000). so a state's right to self-defence is based on its role in protecting the security of its citizens (the state's 'Responsibility to protect') – and thus protecting the security ©OEやaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±や ı±や©-Øや©OEや 2aeØや OE3-ŁßØ-2oeや °Ø®3ı°ØssØ-2±や OE©°や ±22Øや oeØoı2ıssa1⁄2や-Ł╇や±や *や argued earlier, a state's right to non-interference.17 Resorting to political violence in ŁØOEØ-aØや©OEや-2ı©-oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やa-や2aeØ°ØOE©°Øや©-oe1⁄2やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやı-や°Ø±¬©-±Øや2©やや2ae°Ø2や2©や the nation's integrity that seriously threatens the security of the nation's citizens. 5ae3±やOE°╇や*やaeμØや©-oe1⁄2やa©-±ıŁØ°ØŁや1aeØ-や1°やa©3oeŁやAEØやł3±2ıRØŁや2©や¬°©2Øa2や や±22ØやOE°©ßや external threats to national security. But what if the threat to national security comes 14 This is the basic idea behind social contract theories of state authority. For contemporary discussions of social contract theories, see Waldron 2006: 493–4. 15や *-や2°Łı2ı©-oeやł3±2や1°や2aeØ©°1⁄2╇や1°やı±やł3±2ıRØŁやı-や-2ı©-oeやŁØOEØ-aØや©-oe1⁄2やıOEや1°やı±や2aeØやoe±2や °Ø±©°2や〉oeoeや©2aeØ°やμıoeAEoeØやssØ-±や©OEや°Ø±©oeμı-oや2aeØやa©-Sıa2やaeμØやAEØØ-やmØss¬2ØŁ《や-Łや2aeØや °Ø±©°2や2©や1°や1ıoeoeや-©2やa3±Øやss©°Øや±3TØ°ı-oや2ae2やı2やı±や ıssı-oや2©や¬°ØμØ-2╆や02aeØ°やa©ßss©-oe1⁄2や accepted criteria of a just war include legitimate authority (war must be authorized by a legitimate authority and publicly declared), right intention and probability of success. For a discussion of these principles and the concept of just war, see luban 1980; mcmahan 2006; and Rodin 2005. 16 As i noted earlier, many authors now believe that the resort to war to defend others OE°©ßや3-ł3±2やmaøやı±やoe±©やł3±2ıRØŁや〉8oe3⁄4Ø°やイーーー╈やクカむアーケ《╆ 17や *2や ı±や-©2や2aeØや©-oe1⁄2や°Ø®3ı°ØssØ-2やOE©°や±22ØやoeØoı2ıssa1⁄2╇やae©1ØμØ°╆や%μıŁや-3AE-や〉アケクー《╇やOE©°や instance, argues that a state is legitimate only if it governs with the consent of its citizens. As such, a benevolent dictatorship would not be legitimate even if it did not harm the security of its citizens. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 111 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 112 from within a state? ordinary criminal violence is unlikely to seriously threaten a state's integrity, but revolution, insurgencies and domestic terrorism could all pose a serious threat to national security. yet using military force to respond to such threats would directly harm the security of the citizens who are responsible for the threats -Łや2ae3±╇やa©-2°°1⁄2や2©やss1⁄2やØ°oeıØ°やaoeıss╇やı2や¬¬Ø°±や2ae2ややoØ-3ı-Øやa©-Sıa2やAEØ21ØØ-や the security of the state and the security of (some of) the state's citizens is possible. A detailed analysis of how states should respond to internal threats is beyond the scope of this chapter. however, a number of factors should be taken into aa©3-2や1aeØ-やa©-±ıŁØ°ı-oや1aeØ2aeØ°や や±22Øや1©3oeŁやAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやı-や3±ı-oやssıoeı2°1⁄2やOE©°aØや against its own citizens if those citizens posed a serious threat to national security. First, i argued earlier that the right of sub-state communities to state protection depends on how well those communities treat their members and whether they threaten the security of non-members. communities that threaten the security of members and/or non-members may not be entitled to state protection. similarly, if individual citizens or groups of citizens pose a threat of unjust harm to others, they may also be legitimately subject to restrictions and punishment – and even the use of force – by the state. Just as a state's right to non-interference depends on the state's treatment of its citizens, so an individual's right to non-interference depends on whether that individual poses a threat of serious harm to others. Thus, i argue that if a state is upholding its responsibility to protect its citizens, then that state may defend itself against unjust internal threats to national security. But the use of force in such cases must meet the criteria discussed earlier in relation to the resort to war. The use of force must be necessary to prevent the threat (all ©2aeØ°やssØ-±や©OEや¬°ØμØ-2ı-oや2aeØや2ae°Ø2やss3±2やaeμØやAEØØ-やmØss¬2ØŁ《╇や2aeØや3±Øや©OEやOE©°aØや must have some chance of success in stopping the threat and the harm caused by the use of force must be proportional to the harm being prevented. But what if a state is failing (or actively violating) its responsibility to protect the basic rights of its citizens? What may citizens do in response? could non-state groups legitimately use violence against the state? /©-ま±22Øや7ı©oeØ-aØや-Łや4Øa3°ı21⁄2 *OEやや±22Øやı±やł3±2ıRØŁやı-や°Ø±©°2ı-oや2©やμı©oeØ-aØやı-や©°ŁØ°や2©や¬°©2Øa2や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやı2±や citizens, understood as the security of the conditions of identity, then could non-state a2©°±や oe±©やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁやı-や°Ø±©°2ı-oや2©やμı©oeØ-aØや2©や2aeØや¬°©2Øa2や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±′や it is clear from the above discussion that states do not have a moral monopoly ©-や2aeØやł3±2ıRa2ı©-や©OEや±ØoeOEまŁØOEØ-aØ╆や*OEやや±22Øやı±やOEıoeı-oや2©や¬°©2Øa2や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやı2±や citizens or is actively undermining that security, then it is plausible that a sub-state group could legitimately act on behalf of citizens in order to protect their security 〉OE©°やss©°Øや©-や 2aeı±╇や ±ØØや7ıa2©°©Tや-Łや"ŁØoess-╇や$ae¬2Ø°やク╇や 2aeı±やμ©oe3ssØ《╆や)©1や1Øや would know whether a sub-state group is genuinely acting on the behalf of (or 1ı2aeや2aeØやa©-±Ø-2や©OE《やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±やı±や-やıss¬©°2-2や®3Ø±2ı©-╆や%Øss©a°2ıaや±22Ø±や21⁄2¬ıaoeoe1⁄2や have institutional procedures that allow citizens to express consent, and so it can be relatively easy to ascertain whether or not a state genuinely acts on behalf of and 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 112 9/14/2012 11:56:16 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 113 1ı2aeや2aeØやa©-±Ø-2や©OEやı2±やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±╇やAE32や2aeı±やı±やss3aaeやss©°ØやŁıUa3oe2や2©や±aØ°2ı-やı-や2aeØや a±Øや©OEや±3AEま±22Øやo°©3¬±╆や:Ø2╇や ±や7ı°oı-ıや)ØoeŁや °o3Ø±や〉イーーオ╈やアクエむカ《╇や2aeı±やŁıUa3oe21⁄2やı-や establishing whether a sub-state acts on behalf of and with the consent of citizens does not imply that no such group could genuinely so act. sub-state groups could act to protect the physical safety of all or a sub-set of citizens, as in the case of a resistance movement or an insurgency that aims to protect citizens from government violence, but they could also act to protect citizens from threats to their moral security. As i argued above, certain kinds of policies undermine moral security by communicating to their targets the message that they are intrinsically inferior, and so may be treated in ways that would otherwise be wrong. if a state supported or endorsed severe forms of discrimination – even while protecting the physical safety of citizens – those discriminated against could justly complain that their security is being undermined by the state. given the importance of moral security to the conditions of identity, i argue that those so discriminated oı-±2や1©3oeŁや AEØや ł3±2ıRØŁや ı-や 2øı-oや a2ı©-や 2©や ¬°©2Øa2や 2aeØı°やss©°oeや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や OE°©ßや OE3°2aeØ°や maø╆や #32や 1aeØ2aeØ°や violentや a2ı©-や1©3oeŁや AEØや ł3±2ıRØŁや1©3oeŁや ŁØ¬Ø-Łや ©-や whether non-violent forms of protest (for example, mass demonstrations, lobbying, ±2°ıøØ±や-ŁやaıμıoeやŁı±©AEØŁıØ-aØ《やaeŁやAEØØ-やmØss¬2ØŁや-Łや¬°©μØŁや3-±3aaØ±±OE3oe╇や-Łや whether violent protest would have a chance of success and be proportional to the harm being averted. given the potential harm to innocent people caused by violent ¬°©2Ø±2╇やoØ-3ı-ØやmØss¬2±や2©や°ØssØŁ1⁄2や2aeØや±ı232ı©-や2ae°©3oaeや-©-まμı©oeØ-2やssØ-±やss3±2や aeμØや ©aa3°°ØŁや AEØOE©°Øや μı©oeØ-aØや a©3oeŁや AEØや ł3±2ıRØŁ╆18 That said, the importance of moral security to the basic conditions of identity would justify the use of violence to protect moral security if the threat to moral security was profound and such violence was necessary, proportionate and a last resort. 43aaeや μı©oeØ-aØや -ØØŁや -©2や 2øØや 2aeØや OE©°ßや ©OEや 2Ø°°©°ı±ß╆や 8aeıoeØや ±©ßØや ŁØR-ı2ı©-±や of terrorism, notably those of the Us Department of state and the Us national counterterrorism center (ncTc 2008), rule out the possibility of state terrorism, -1⁄2やa©-±ı±2Ø-2や-Łや-©-む°AEı2°°1⁄2やŁØR-ı2ı©-や©OEや2Ø°°©°ı±ßやa--©2やssøØややŁı±2ı-a2ı©-や between state and non-state actors. Terrorism is, i suggest, best understood as a tactic that can and has been used by both state and non-state actors, a tactic that ß-1⁄2やŁØR-Øや±や2aeØや3±Øや©°や2ae°Ø2や©OEやμı©oeØ-aØやoı-±2やaıμıoeı-±や©°やı--©aØ-2±や1ı2aeや2aeØや ı-2Ø-2ı©-や©OEや±¬°ØŁı-oやOEØ°やı-や©°ŁØ°や2©やı-S3Ø-aØや や1ıŁØ°やo°©3¬や〉±ØØや1°ıss©°nやイーーイ《╆や )©1ØμØ°╇や±や)ØoeŁや〉イーーオ╈やアキク《や-©2Ø±╇や2Ø°°©°ı±2±やmaøやssıoeı2°1⁄2や-Łや¬©oeıaØや2°oØ2±や±や 1Øoeoeやむや2aeØやmaø±や©-や2aeØや1Ø-2o©-やı-やイーーアや-Łや2aeØやUSS Cole in yemen in 2000, for Ø1⁄4ß¬oeØ╇や1Ø°Øや1ıŁØoe1⁄2やŁØ±a°ıAEØŁや±や2Ø°°©°ı±2やmaø±やØμØ-や2ae©3oaeや2aeØや2°oØ2±や1Ø°Øや ßıoeı2°1⁄2╆や5©やı-a©°¬©°2Øや2aeı±や3±oØや©OEや2aeØや2Ø°ß╇や)ØoeŁやŁØR-Ø±や2Ø°°©°ı±ßや±や】¬©oeı2ıaoeや μı©oeØ-aØや2ae2や3±3oeoe1⁄2やı-μ©oeμØ±や±3ŁŁØ-やmaø±や2©や±¬°ØŁやOEØ°や2©やや1ıŁØ°やo°©3¬や2ae-や 2ae©±ØやmaøØŁ╇や©OE2Ø-やŁ©ı-oや±©やAE1⁄2や2°oØ2ı-oやaıμıoeı-±‒╆や5ae3±やŁØR-ØŁ╇や2Ø°°©°ı±ßやss1⁄2や be used by both state and non-state actors, although it should be remembered that state terrorism has been by far the most deadly form of terrorism during the last 200 years (held 2005: 178). 18や 5aeı±や¬°oeoeØoe±や2aeØや°Ø®3ı°ØssØ-2±や©OEやoe±2や°Ø±©°2╇や-ØaØ±±ı21⁄2╇や-Łや¬°©¬©°2ı©-oeı21⁄2やı-やł3±2や1°や theory, discussed earlier. 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 113 9/14/2012 11:56:17 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや"ырпйьнや3нынйълрや$чхшйцсчцやьчや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлн 114 5Ø°°©°ı±ßやAEØ°±やや¬°2ıa3oe°oe1⁄2やaeıoaeやAE3°ŁØ-や©OEやł3±2ıRa2ı©-や-©2や©-oe1⁄2やAEØa3±Øやı2や ©OE2Ø-やŁØoeıAEØ°2Øoe1⁄2や 2°oØ2±やaıμıoeı-±╇やAE32やoe±©やAEØa3±Øや ı2やmaø±や 2aeØやμıa2ıss±‒やss©°oeや and subjective security by seeming (from the victims' point of view) arbitrary and °-Ł©ß╇や-ŁやAEØa3±Øや2aeØやŁı°Øa2やμıa2ıss±や©OEや2aeØやmaøや°Øや2°Ø2ØŁや±やssØ-±や2©や2aeØや 2Ø°°©°ı±2±‒やØ-Łやむや2aeØやμıa2ıss±‒やŁØ2ae±や-Łやı-ł3°ıØ±や°Øや3±ØŁや2©やı-S3Ø-aØややŁıTØ°Ø-2や o°©3¬や〉OE©°やı-±2-aØ╇や2aeØやo©μØ°-ßØ-2《や2©や2øØや や¬°2ıa3oe°やa©3°±Øや©OEや a2ı©-や〉1°ıss©°nや 2002). Terrorism is thus a paradigmatic case of treating individuals as mere means and it thus radically undermines the victims' moral security (for more on the use of individuals as mere means, see Blakely, chapter 4, this volume). hence, without 2øı-oややR°ßや±2-Łや©-や2aeØやı±±3ØやaeØ°Ø╇やı2やı±ややa©-±Ø®3Ø-aØや©OEやss1⁄2やμıØ1や2ae2や2Ø°°©°ı±ßや 1©3oeŁや°°Øoe1⁄2╇やıOEやØμØ°╇やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁ╆ That said, my account leaves open the possibility that non-state groups may legitimately resort to other forms of political violence to protect the security of citizens. By emphasizing the importance of moral security to the conditions of identity, my account allows for the possibility that political violence may be ł3±2ıRØŁや-©2や©-oe1⁄2や2©や¬°©2Øa2やaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±‒や¬ae1⁄2±ıaoeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やAE32やoe±©や2aeØı°やss©°oeや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や in cases where a state's policies are so discriminatory that they seriously undermine the victims' moral well-being. in order to justify a resort to violence, such threats to moral security would have to be extremely severe, but need not be threats to physical safety. Therefore, a state that routinely subjected a sub-set of its citizens to ongoing and extreme discrimination, leaving those citizens unable to develop their capacity for self-conception and their belief in their basic moral worth, without actually physically harming them, would still be failing in its positive duty to its aı2ı3⁄4Ø-±や -Łや a©3oeŁ╇や ©2aeØ°や 2aeı-o±や AEØı-oや Ø®3oe╇や AEØや や oeØoı2ıss2Øや 2°oØ2や OE©°や ¬©oeı2ıaoeや violence aimed at protecting the security of those citizens. Conclusion *-や2aeı±やaae¬2Ø°や*や©TØ°ØŁや -や aa©3-2や©OEや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やAE±ØŁや©-や -や ±±Ø±±ßØ-2や©OEや2aeØや-23°Øや of persons – typical human beings – in order to clarify what security for human persons means. i argued that security for human persons involves not only physical safety, but also subjective security and, importantly, moral security. These three ±¬Øa2±や a©ßAEı-Øや 2©や OE©°ßや 2aeØや ±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEや 2aeØやa©-Łı2ı©-±や©OEや ıŁØ-2ı21⁄2やむややŁØR-ı2ı©-や of security that captures the basic physical, psychological and moral components necessary for human identity and self-conception. Applying this conception of security to the relationship between security and national security illuminated how a state's duty to protect its citizens goes beyond ensuring their physical safety and ae©1や±22Øやa2ı©-±やss1⁄2や3-ŁØ°ßı-Øや±Øa3°ı21⁄2やı-やや-3ssAEØ°や©OEやŁıTØ°Ø-2や11⁄2±╆や5ae3±╇や*や argued that national security as a moral value is intimately connected to individual security, and so protecting national security may in some cases justify the resort to political violence. however, the importance of the security of the conditions of identity also left room for the possibility that the use of violence by sub-state o°©3¬±や2©や¬°©2Øa2や2aeØや±Øa3°ı21⁄2や©OEやaı2ı3⁄4Ø-±やss1⁄2やoe±©やAEØやł3±2ıRØŁ╆ 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 114 9/14/2012 11:56:17 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P R O O F 5рнや$чцлншьやчоや4нлэъсь唖やсцや1чфсьслйфや7счфнцлнや 115 The implications of my account of security for debates in political violence go beyond what i was able to discuss in this chapter. however, the conception of security of the conditions of identity that i have argued for in this chapter provides an important starting point for further investigation. References Altman, A. and Wellman, c.h. (2008), 'From humanitarian intervention to Assassination: human Rights and political Violence', Ethics 118, 228–57. Anderson, B. (2006), Imagined Communities, 2nd edn (london: Verso). Bain, W. (2001), 'The Tyranny of Benevolence: national security, human security, and the practice of statecraft', Global Society 15:3, 277–74. Baldwin, David. (1997), 'The concept of security', Review of International Studies 26, 5–16. Bellamy, A. (2010), 'The Responsibility to protect – Five years on', Ethics and *-2Ø°-2ı©-oeや"Tı°± 24:2, 143–69. Berlet, c. and Vysotsky, s. (2006), 'overview of U.s. White supremacist groups', Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34:1, 11–48. Booth, K. (2006), 'introduction to part 1', in Booth, K. (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder: lynne Rienner). Brison, s. (2002), "OE2Ø°ß2ae╈や7ı©oeØ-aØや-Łや2aeØや3Øssøı-oや©OEやや4ØoeOE (princeton: princeton University press). Buzan, B. (1983), People, States, and Fear (Boulder: lynne Rienner). chambers, c. (2002), 'All must have prizes: The liberal case for intervention in cultural practices', in Kelly, p. (ed.), Multiculturalism Reconsidered: 'Culture and Equality' and its Critics (cambridge: polity press). coady, c.A.J. (2002), The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention (Washington Dc: Us institute of peace). $©ßssı±±ı©-や©-や)3ss-や4Øa3°ı21⁄2╆や〉イーーウ《╇や】'ı-oeや3Ø¬©°2‒╇ややaem¬╈のの©aae©-oeı-Ø╆3-╆©°oの ae3ss-±Øa3°ı21⁄2の$)4のR-oe°Ø¬©°2のı-ŁØ1⁄4╆ae2ssoeや》aaØ±±ØŁやエや+3oe1⁄2やイーアイ『╆ %3UØoeŁ╇や.╆や-Łや8ŁŁØoeoe╇や/╆や 〉イーーカ《╇や 】4Øa3°ı-oや)3ss-±や ı-やや%-oØ°©3±や8©°oeŁ‒╇や International Politics 43:1, 1–23. Foot, R. (2006), 'Torture: The struggle over a peremptory norm in a counterTerrorist era', International Relations 20:2, 131–51. (°ıU-╇や+╆や〉イーーア《╇や】'ı°±2や42Ø¬±やı-や-や"aa©3-2や©OEや)3ss-や3ıoae2±‒╇やEuropean Journal of Philosophy 9:3, 306–27. held, V. (2005), 'legitimate Authority in non-state groups Using Violence', Journal of Social Philosophy 36:2, 175–93. hillyard, p. (1993), Suspect Community: People's Experience of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in Britain (london: pluto press). icRtop (international coalition for the Responsibility to protect) (2009), 'implementing the Responsibility to protect the 2009 general Assembly Debate: An Assessment: Report by the global center for the Responsibility to protect', 9780754677529_Breen-Smyth.indb 115 9/14/2012 11:56:17 AM