Supporters of the concept of human security argue that the challenges and threats that states face today are better served by recognizing that human security is national security. Using ONE of the following cases below, address whether or not the foreign policy in your selected case reflects the idea of human security as national security? Should it? 1. United States foreign policy and terrorism 2. Israeli foreign policy and the peace process 3. Iranian foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation
To address this question, your paper should do the following: 1. Differentiate between human security and the conventional conception of national security. 2. Outline state behaviors which would be consistent with both conceptions of security. 3. Briefly outline and explain the foreign policy of your selected case in the relevant policy area. 4. Is foreign policy within your case consistent with the idea of human security as national security? Why? Why not? 5. Should it be more/less consistent with human security?

Order Description( What is “Human Security” and what does it seek to explain or even replace. Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the theories and definitions of human security noted in our readings. Using different theories and different ideas about sovereignty, the “state” and the various ideas about the use of forces, write an essay that lays out the core logic and causal arguments of Human Security and places it in historical and practical context. In short, what is it, what isn’t it, what does it explain, and how might it actually work in the state system in which it is being promoted.)
ANSWER THE QUESTION IN A THESIS DOMINATED, WELL-WRITTEN, CONCEPTUALLY AND EMPIRICALLY INFORMED ESSAY. USE THE FULL RANGE OF COURSE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED/PROVIDED. DO NOT USE ANY OTHER RESOURCES EXCEPT FOR THE ONE I WILL UPLOAD FOR YOU, THEY ARE 5 RESOURCES. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU SHOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT OR CLEAR THESIS IN YOUR ESSAY.

QUOTES OR CITATIONS SHOULD BE PARENTHETIC WITHIN THE BODY OF THE PAPER: EXAMPLE (DURCH pp. 5-6, or WENDT, p. 25.)

Use these steps in the paper please:-
I. THESIS: Argument—what the paper will do and say in the space allotted. This must relate to the central argument of the readings or to a specific (MAKE THIS CLEAR) argument in a reading. In other words, you are arguing for or against (against is always more fun…) an argument made in the reading. It should be clear what that is. PARAGRAPH
II. LOGIC of the argument as suggested by the readings and your understanding of them. This is the “causal tale” that quickly and efficiently lays out the logic of your argument. BE CONCISE. Could be 1-2 PARAGRAPHS
III. EVIDENCE to support your argument, as gleaned from the readings and possibly information FROM THE CLASS (readings at least 75%) 2-3 PARAGRAPHS
AND/OR
IV. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES of your and/or the central argument of the book—can include counter arguments. 2-3 PARAGRAPHS
V. CONCLUSION—PARAGRAPH