The Case For A Posthuman Responsibility to Protect: An Anishinaabeg Posthuman Security Convergence

Abstract

Critical Security Studies (CSS) seeks to shift the referent point of analysis away from the traditional frameworks employed by Traditional Security Studies (TSS), such as the primacy of the nation-state, guided by theories like realism and liberal-institutionalism. Nonetheless, while CSS aims to broaden the analytical lens beyond the state-centric view employed by TSS, it inadvertently falls into its own normative trap by overly centring its analysis on human-centric perspectives. This emphasis on anthropocentrism, while critiquing TSS for its narrow focus on the nation-state as the sole referent point of analysis, presents a paradoxical bias within CSS itself. The critique extends to the observation that CSS's human-centric bias not only narrows its analytical scope but also contributes to broader issues, particularly the exacerbation of the climate emergency. 

Therefore, this document advocates for the development of a 'posthuman security convergence' by integrating Anishinaabeg and European jurisprudences, as a form of "border thinking, or border epistemology." This framework aims to dismantle security studies’ anthropocentric referent point of analysis by merging the Anishinaabeg knowledge(s) of Chi-Naaknigewin (responsibility to the biosphere), with the existing Westphalian concept of 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) that is central to the dominant, intergovernmental security paradigm. Laying necessary, although not sufficient foundations for a prospective ‘posthuman responsibility to protect’ (PR2P), this document seeks to establish a new foundational basis for security studies that transcends its anthropocentric limitations, offering a topical and critical response to the pressing need for a security paradigm that encompasses environmental and ecological concerns in the face of the climate emergency.