| Summary: | The thesis investigates the link between development and security - the ‘development-security nexus’- which emerged during the 1990s, facilitated by the formulation of human development and human security. It examines how this development-security nexus has evolved over time and has influenced the interrelated significance of development and security for international relations. The thesis questions this interdependence and analyses the theory and practice that see development and security issues as reciprocally reinforcing each other, in particular through a set of policies called Security Sector Reform (SSR). The research includes three main areas of interest related to the different meanings of development and security focusing in particular on human development and human security; the various interpretations of the development-security nexus since the 1990s; and the analysis of how Security Sector Reform, publicised as development-security nexus policies, are designed to translate it into practice. The thesis argues that the nexus between development and security is under-theorised, and the originality of this research is to investigate the link between its theories and practices. The critical view of this thesis towards current dominant theoretical and operational orientations of the development-security nexus is based on an analysis of literature on Critical Security Studies, Post- Development, and Non-mainstream International Relations approaches. The thesis contributes to existing scholarship by unpacking the different meanings of development and security embedded in Security Sector Reform policies and reveals the need to contextualise the significance of their interlinkages within each policy scenario. In particular the three case studies on Defence Reform of Armenia, SSR Afghanistan and SSR Guinea-Bissau highlight respectively: 1) the novelty of concerns raised by SSR and the complexity to categorise concerns on security within a single, even if inclusive, policy discourse. 2) the need to go beyond the narrow view of a militarised view of security and its inadequacy to support the implementation of development objectives and 3) that the link between development and security is still very much dependent on a vision of security linked to the state’s armed forces, and of development which is focused on state security governance capacity.
|
|---|
