{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0248565965583174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.487603305785124, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are civil protection forces a better choice than the military? Human security and military forces deployment under new security risks

This paper intends to reflect on the most appropriate means to enhance human security under the multiplication of new security risks, asking whether the responsibility should be attributed to the military or the civil protection forces and discussing the challenges that both agencies’ operations raise. We argue that civil protection forces’ role should be reinforced (and their resources, capabilities and readiness improved) to protect human security under risk materialization (which also meets United Nations Oslo Guidelines). In order to support this claim, we will explore: first, the intentions (and opportunities and challenges) of the military in co-opting new security risks into their agenda, as well as (argue for and) intervening as the key actor in foreign interventions; second, how the divide between internal and external security curtails military action abroad in new threats and risks and demonstrates its inadequacy (even with dual-purpose/dual-use equipment); third, how new threats and (particularly) risks make civil protection forces more useful in foreign interventions than the military. Resorting to the Idai cyclone in Mozambique and Portugal’s response to it, we will briefly explore issues arising from the deployment of the military in a scenario on natural disasters. In short, we claim that, civil protection forces’ frequently offer a better contribution to human security crises than the military.