LAUSR

determine why, how and when states respond to the issue of human security, whether at home or abroad (Hillebrecht and MacMahon, p. 15). The state’s response in terms of domestic human security is well explained by the contributors in the cases of China, post-Soviet Central Asia, Mexico and Egypt (chapters 2–5). Meanwhile, human security issues could also be a transnational problem that requires state involvement abroad by establishing mutual cooperation and international norms, as discussed in chapters 6 and 8. Furthermore, Forsithe argues in chapter 7 that the intentions of the state to promote its citizens’ human security might also abuse the human security of others. In their desire to emphasise freedom from fear, the authors unfortunately pay scant attention to the root cause of human insecurity. The book even assumes that unrest is rooted solely in sophisticated economic needs such as work-related issues (Wedeman, p. 33) and quality of life (Phelps et al., p. 200), neglecting the role of freedom from want as a basic component of human security. Both approaches are implemented with the same aim of protecting individual security. Therefore, rather than understanding human security as the struggle between the broad and the narrow approach, it would be better to be more focused on the implementation and effectiveness of human security by providing discussion about appropriate measurements and frameworks for its conceptualisation and implementation. Suyani Indriastuti (University of Nottingham)