Rethinking Human Security Through Feminist Lenses

At the beginning of the 2000s, the increased salience of the concept of human security was a welcome development both in academic and policy circles. Problematizing the state's central role as the principal object of security allowed human beings' security needs and concerns to be put in front and center, at least in theory, if not necessarily in practice. The increasing traction the concept got also allowed several non-traditional security threats, such as environment, health and migration, to be approached through security lenses and put on security agendas. Despite the burgeoning literature and the notable frequency at which the concept of human security got incorporated into policy discussions, it has lost, at least partially, its analytical traction and policy saliency. The lack of a clear definition as well as vague and tactical use of the concept by policymakers have raised concerns about the human security concept turning into an empty signifier. While the human security concept was welcome by some feminist approaches, it is also criticized by others. This article aims to discuss the human security concept through different feminist perspectives and understand its adaptability in the field based on a comparative interpretive analysis of feminist foreign policy initiatives by Sweden, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Spain, Chile and Luxembourg. To realize this aim, we analyze the conceptualization and implementation of feminist foreign policies and how they put the human security approach into practice. We seek to problematize how feminist foreign policies tackle the ambiguities and limitations within the human security framework, and to what degree these policies confront or maintain current power dynamics and state-centered security models. We argue that feminist foreign policies do highlight the problems related to gender equality and contribute to their solutions, but do not challenge patriarchy and the power relations behind it. As such, while they contribute to better implementation of human security as a guiding principle for foreign policy, conventional foreign policy concerns limit the change they can create on the ground.