Abstract
Besides the more obvious threats and impediments to human security posed by conflict or natural disaster, a central problem in examining and addressing multiple insecurities in Southeast Asia is at what level. Each country confronts a different context of human security and faces a host of intersecting circumstances that render situational day-to-day forms of precariousness difficult to recognise and interpret. How then are we to proceed? This article considers a range of social science concepts and approaches (which have not been brought together in this form before) and their utility for investigating human security in the region. It argues that more disaggregated and grounded perspectives can open the way for human security to gain fuller analytical purchase on contemporary marginality and precariousness in Southeast Asia.
Highlights
Human security came to the attention of the international community in the mid-1990s with the release of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Human Development Report (1994)
While far from moribund, the state-centric security and military paradigm was admonished for being increasingly at odds with the challenges posed by contemporary sources of conflict and insecurity in a globalising world (Kaldor 1999; ul Haq 1995). This was attributed to the fact that “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy... it has been related to nation-states more than people” (UNDP 1994: 22–23)
We argue that the study of human security in Southeast Asia should engage a fuller range of multidisciplinary social science lenses
Summary
The total population of Southeast Asia is forecast to grow from around 640 million to over 800 million by 2050 (United Nations 2019). Dealing with the attendant host of intersecting human insecurities of such a future is a pressing concern for the region Those living in precarious circumstances across Southeast Asia may have different histories, geographies and face varying socio-economic, political and cultural realities, but they convey common messages. Whether it be the marginalised communities of Penan, Iban and Orang Asli in Malaysia or Karen on the Thai-Myanmar border, upland shifting cultivators in the southern Philippines, or informal coastal dwellers and migrants who traverse borders, or street children in Jakarta, Bangkok and Manila, they have rights as human-beings to protection and support in the conduct of their daily lives (Carnegie et al 2016). It can lead to the taking of one’s own life
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
