View : 33 Download: 0

Full metadata record

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.advisor김은미-
dc.contributor.author장수연-
dc.creator장수연-
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-18T16:31:33Z-
dc.date.available2019-02-18T16:31:33Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.otherOAK-000000153748-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dcollection.ewha.ac.kr/common/orgView/000000153748en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.ewha.ac.kr/handle/2015.oak/248829-
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation aims to critically analyze the current state-centric approach to fragility and seek to develop a new conceptual and analytical framework for fragility analysis. The study calls this framework “human fragility,” which denotes its intention to take a human-centered approach. In this study, human fragility is defined as a “situation or place where individual human beings are insecure or vulnerable to becoming insecure” and explores following questions: (1) how does the current state-centered approach define, conceptualize and measure fragility?; (2) what has been missing from the state-centered approach to fragility?; (3) to what extent does the human-centered approach to fragility—human fragility—address the missing information?; and (4) whether, if so why, are there gaps between state-centered and human-centered approaches to fragility? While the state still serves a useful analytical purpose, the state-centered approach to fragility tends to reduce the study of fragility to state robustness and therefore does not pay much attention to subnational elements such as society and individual human beings. As a result, it only addresses one part of the story and omits important information about the subnational dynamics of fragility and individuals who are directly affected by, and living with, state failure and will also have to cope with its aftermath. Thus, this study argues that the statist approach is insufficient in and of itself for defining fragility, and a new or revised framework is required for measuring and engaging with fragile states from below. This human fragility framework not only shifts the unit of analysis from the state to individual human beings, but also reveals new phenomena hidden from, and neglected by, the state-centered approach, thereby addressing different, even more important, layers of fragility. For example, the mapping exercise showed that the intensity and main challenges of human fragility vary according to place. Even in countries challenged by human fragility, certain subnational locations—such as borders, cities or urban areas—can be more fragile than others, depending on the concentration or distribution of insecure or vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, the case of the stateless Rohingya, as a hidden problem without government recognition in the context of state-centrism, provided a useful case for analyzing gaps between state fragility and human fragility approaches by disclosing countries facing different types of fragility that could not be captured by the state-centered approach to fragility, such as Thailand and Malaysia in this study. Finally, both empirical analyses showed that fragility is not static or confined by national borders, but constantly moving with fragile individuals across regions and borders. Therefore, the human fragility framework, as a revisionist approach to the current state-centered fragility framework, would help policymakers and practitioners make better-informed decisions by identifying the places where development and/or humanitarian assistance and state policies either have not or cannot reach fragile individual human beings. ;본 연구는 기존의 국가 중심의 취약성(fragility) 접근방법을 비판적으로 분석하고, 인간 중심의 새로운 취약성 개념 및 분석 틀을 제시하고자 한다. 본 연구에서는 이를 “인간 취약성”이라 명명하고, 인간안보, 취약도(vulnerability), 적극적 평화 등의 개념을 종합하여 “개개의 인간이 불안정(insecure)하거나 불안정에 취약한(vulnerable to becoming insecure) 상황이나 장소”로 정의하였다. 국가는 취약성 논의에서 여전히 중요한 분석 단위이다. 그러나 국가중심적 취약성 접근방법은 사회 및 개개인과 같은 국가하위요소를 간과하고 있으며, 그 결과 취약성의 지역적 불균형 및 특히 개개인이 경험하는 취약성의 격차 등을 설명하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 기존의 국가중심적 접근방법은 취약성을 정의하고 측정하는데 그 자체로 충분하지 않으며, 취약성의 본질을 이해하기 위해서는 수정된 분석 체계가 필요하다. 본 연구에서 제안한 인간 취약성 분석 틀은 양적, 질적, 시각적 방법을 결합한 두 단계의 실증연구—매핑(mapping), 사례분석—를 통해, 분석의 “단위”를 국가에서 개인으로 전환했을 뿐만 아니라 국가중심적 접근방법에서는 보이지 않는 현상을 드러나게 함으로써 분석의 “관점” 또한 전환하였음을 증명하였다. 매핑 연구는 인간 취약성의 정도와 주 위험 요소가 지역에 따라 다양하며, 취약한 개인의 집중 및 분포 정도에 따라 한 국가 내에서도 특정 지역이 더 취약할 수 있음을 보여주었다. 또한 로힝야 무국적자 사례는 국가중심주의적 맥락 속에서 국가의 인정(recognition) 없이는 표면화될 수 없는 문제로 국가 취약성과 인간 취약성의 간극(gap)을 여실히 보여주었다. 특히 국가중심적 접근방법으로는 포착할 수 없었던 (즉, 기존의 취약국 논의에서 주로 “비”취약국으로 분류되었던) 국가들이 인간 취약성 관점에서는 취약하다는 것을 확인하였다. 마지막으로 두 실증연구 모두 취약성은 고정되어 있거나 국경에 국한된 것이 아니라 취약한 개개인의 움직임에 따라 유동적임을 보여주었다. 따라서 인간 취약성 분석 틀은 기존의 국가중심적 취약성 분석 틀에 대한 수정적 대안으로서 정책결정자 및 실무자들이 충분한 정보에 입각한 의사결정을 내리는데 기여할 수 있다.-
dc.description.tableofcontentsI. Introduction 1 A. Purpose of the study 1 B. Background to the study: A state-centered approach to fragility analysis 3 C. Significance of the study 6 D. Structure of the dissertation 8 II. Literature Review 12 A. Theoretical background to the fragile state discourse 13 1. 1950s and 1960s: Linear and growth-oriented development model 14 2. Late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: Critical approaches to development 17 3. 1990s: Bringing the state back in and the emergence of human security 19 4. 2000s: Interdisciplinary approach to development 23 B. Fragile state in policy analysis 25 C. State-centered approach to fragility and its critiques 33 III. Conceptual Framework 38 A. From state fragility to human fragility 38 1. Non-state-centric approach to fragility 38 2. Vulnerability, resilience and human security 41 B. What is human fragility 46 C. Features of the human fragility framework 50 IV. Research Design 54 A. Overview of the research design 54 B. A critique of identifying fragile state 55 C. Two-stage empirical analysis 66 1. Mapping exercise 68 a. Human security: Physical threats 70 b. Human security: Deprivation 73 c. Human vulnerability: Capacity for response and further development 74 2. Case analysis 79 V. Mapping of Human Fragility 83 A. Human fragility at the cross-country level 83 B. Human fragility at the regional and subnational levels 92 1. High levels of displacement and violence in the Middle East and North Africa 94 2. High levels of deprivation and vulnerability in sub-Saharan Africa 100 3. Human fragility in Asia and the Pacific 103 4. High level of (inter-personal) violence in Latin America and the Caribbean 106 C. Mapping of human fragility 109 VI. Case Study Analysis: The Stateless Rohingya in Southeast Asia 112 A. Stateless persons and protection gaps 113 1. International legal framework for statelessness 113 2. Gaps in the protection of the stateless 115 3. Statelessness in Southeast Asia 116 B. The Rohingya Crisis 118 1. Who are the Rohingya 118 2. Why are the Rohingya stateless 120 3. Where are the Rohingya 125 C. Responses to the stateless Rohingya 126 1. Internally displaced Rohingya in Myanmar 127 2. Rohingya as refugees in Bangladesh 134 3. Rohingya as a national security problem in Thailand 139 4. Rohingya as illegal migrants in Malaysia 142 D. Fragility of whom Stateless Rohingya versus host countries 145 1. Gaps between human fragility and state fragility 145 2. Fragility of the most vulnerable, not state 148 VII. Conclusions 151 A. Summary of findings 151 B. Contribution of dissertation 155 C. Way forward 158 References 161 Annex I. Description of Measurements of Fragile State 230 Annex II. Data 258 국문초록 265-
dc.formatapplication/pdf-
dc.format.extent2269294 bytes-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisher이화여자대학교 국제대학원-
dc.subject.ddc300-
dc.titleHuman Fragility-
dc.typeDoctoral Thesis-
dc.title.subtitleA Critique of the Fragile State Discourse from a Human-Centered Perspective, with a Focus on the Stateless Rohingya-
dc.creator.othernameSuyoun Jang-
dc.format.pagex, 266 p.-
dc.identifier.thesisdegreeDoctor-
dc.identifier.major국제대학원 국제학과-
dc.date.awarded2019. 2-
Appears in Collections:
국제대학원 > 국제학과 > Theses_Ph.D
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE