| Abstrakt: |
China's relationship with human security has been ambiguous. It has acted as the most visible objector of the concept, while simultaneously contributing the most troops of all UN Security Council permanent members to UN protection of civilians (POC) peacekeeping missions. To analyse this ambiguity, we develop a typology of activities used by external actors to address human security concerns: mediation, physical protection including the use of force, and capacity building. The typology draws on the three constituent responsibilities in Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and closely aligns with the three tiers of the UN peacekeeping POC policy. We apply our typology on China's engagement with the South Sudan civil war. We posit two interlinked arguments. First, we argue that China pursues a dual-track approach to human security, within and outside multilateral deployments, and these need to be read simultaneously to appreciate its understanding of the concept. Second, we argue for a refocus on all three types of activities. While most research has focused on the Chinese approach to the use of force, we show that the two other types of activities—mediation and capacity building —present highly productive sites of contestation. Given the current global fragmentation, where any authorisation of the use of force in the UNSC and robust peacekeeping deployments are increasingly improbable, understanding Chinese understandings of human security within mediation and capacity building is of paramount importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
