The Individualisation of Security: A New Architecture for International Security

  • Sarah da Mota
Part of the New Security Challenges book series (NSECH)


As the most decisive and influential normative trend of post-Cold War international security, the Individualisation of Security has progressively re-oriented security policies and their related discourses and rationales from the state to the individual. The Individualisation of Security has entailed the reformulation of security policies and the very conduct of war, reconfiguring them around a different conception of life-valuation that has the Liberal individual at its core. Through the strong ideological and biopolitical stances of humanitarianism, the Individualisation of Security has produced an international discourse of discipline and normalisation, according to which a conduct that is respectful of individuals should be held as natural for all states. This illustrates the extension of the civilising power through international organisations and can be considered as another stage of the civilising process coming from the West.


  1. Adler, E. (2008). The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appiah, A. K. (2007 [2006]). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. London, New Delhi, Johannesburg: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism Transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellamy, A. J. (2004). Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq. Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. (2011). The New Politics of Protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs, 87(4), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilgin, P. (2003). Individual and Societal Dimensions of Security. International Studies Review, 5, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth, K. (1991). Security and Emancipation. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booth, K. (2005). Critical Security Studies Series. Boulder, CO & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunde, T., & Noetzel, T. (2010). Unavoidable Tensions: The Liberal Path to Global NATO. Contemporary Security Policy, 31(2), 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgess, P. J. (2011). The Ethical Subject of Security. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2010). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chandler, D. (2001). Universal Ethics and Elite Politics: The Limits of Normative Human Rights Theory. The International Journal of Human Rights, 5(4), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandler, D. (2002). From Kosovo to Kabul (and Beyond): Human Rights and International Intervention. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chandler, D. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’. International Peacekeeping, 11(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandler, D. (2008). Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark. Security Dialogue, 39(4), 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chesterman, S. (2011). ‘Leading from Behind’: The Responsibility to Protect, the Obama Doctrine, and Humanitarian Intervention After Libya. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, R. (2001). From Individual Security to International Stability. In R. Cohen & M. Mihalka (Eds.), Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order, The Marshall Center Papers, No. 3. Garmisch-Partenkirchen: George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delanty, G. (2003). The Making of a Post-Western Europe: A Civilizational Analysis. Thesis Eleven, 72, 8–25.Google Scholar
  20. Dillon, M., & Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2008). Biopolitics in the 21st Century: An Introduction. Review of International Studies, 34, 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Donnelly, J. (1998). Human Rights: A New Standard of Civilization? International Affairs, 74(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duffield, M. (2008). Global Civil War: The Non-Insured, International Containment and Post-Interventionary Society. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dumont, L. (1983). Essais sur l’individualisme. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  24. Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2002). The Responsibility to Protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finnemore, M. (1996). Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (pp. 153–185). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (2000). Power: Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 3, J. D. Faubion, Ed., R. Hurley et al., Trans.). New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (2003 [1997]). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  28. Gasper, D., & Gomez, O. A. (2015). Human Security in Practice: ‘Personal Security’, ‘Citizen Security’ and Comprehensive Mappings. Contemporary Politics, 21(1), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guilhot, N. (Ed.). (2011). The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the ICISS. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.Google Scholar
  31. Jabri, V. (2007). War and the Transformation of Global Politics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jervis, R. (2011). Morality, Policy and Theory. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. N. Guilhot (pp. 33–53). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kaldor, M., Albrecht, U., Chinkin, C., Dervis, K., Dwan, R., Giddens, A., et al. (2004). A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: The Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities. Spain: Barcelona.Google Scholar
  34. Krause, K., & Williams, M. C. (1997). Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, R. R. (2002). European Security – NATO’s Mission for the New Millennium: A Value-Based Approach to Building Security. Contemporary Security Policy, 23(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NATO. (1949, April 4). North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
  37. NATO. (1991, November 7–8). Official Text: The Alliance’s New Strategic Concept. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from
  38. NATO. (1994, January 11). Partnership for Peace: Framework Document. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from
  39. NATO. (1995a, September 3). Study on NATO Enlargement. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
  40. NATO. (1995b, October 7). Speech by Secretary General Willy Claes at the Meeting of the Atlantic Treaty Association. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from
  41. NATO. (1999a, April 24). The Alliance’s Strategic Concept. Press Release NAC-S(99)065. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
  42. NATO. (1999b, April 24). Membership Action Plan (MAP). Press Release NAC-S(99)066. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
  43. Peoples, C., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. Oxon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Piiparinen, T. (2012). McDonaldisation of Sovereignty: A Foucauldian Analysis of Responsibility to Protect. Global Society, 26(4), 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramel, F. (2003). La sécurité humaine: une valeur de rupture dans les cultures stratégiques du Nord? Etudes Internationales, 34(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rothschild, E. (1995). What Is Security? DAEDALUS: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 124(3), 53–98.Google Scholar
  47. Shusterman, J. (2006). An Interview with the Human Security Unit. Human Security Journal, 2, 97–103.Google Scholar
  48. Suhrke, A. (1999). Human Security and the Interests of States. Security Dialogue, 30(3), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tjalve, V. S. (2011). Designing (De)Security: European Exceptionalism, Atlantic Republicanism and the ‘Public Sphere’. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nations Development Program. (1994). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Walker, R. B. J. (1997). The Subject of Security. In K. Krause & M. C. Williams (Eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (pp. 61–81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  52. Watson, S. (2011). The ‘Human’ as Referent Object?: Humanitarianism as Securitization. Security Dialogue, 42(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber, P. (2009). Too Political or Not Political Enough? A Foucauldian Reading of the Responsibility to Protect. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(4), 581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wyn Jones, R. (1999). Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah da Mota
    • 1
  1. 1.LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations