The concept of Human Security

INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS

Security has been an extension of International relations and global Politics for centuries. To most of the scholars, security is a key component to preserve sovereignty and statehood. Wars, big and small, have been waged to protect the territorial boundaries of state.

SECURITY

Before World War (II), states and alliances move on the path to traditional security that was to strengthen up the muscles behind the guns. However, after World War (II), security was seen as a concept that takes into account all spheres of life – from an individual living in a community and the community itself to a sovereign state. Still after the Cold War, state security remained dominant over security of the individual.

TRADITIONAL SECURITY

The demise of Cold War paved the way for broadening the concept of security in all directions and dimensions during 1990’s due to: Decreased military threats Increased democratization Eruption of a number of humanitarian crises in Asia, Africa and Europe Realization of the human rightsStates certainly have the right to be secure but not at the cost of people.

HUMAN SECURITY

According to Lloyd Axworthy:“ The concept of human security does not oust or replace the traditional security concept. Both concepts represents rather different ideas how to

respond to existing threats. The basis of the traditional security concept is sovereignty of a state, while the basis of the concept of human security is

sovereignty of an individual.”

Concept ofTRADITIONAL SECURITY V/S HUMAN

SECURITY

The concept of human security should be understood as a complement to the traditional security and not as a substitute. The wars between Pakistan and India on Kashmir had been waged with reference to the people of Kashmir. Likewise, the Libya-Chad War in late 70’s, Tanzania-Uganda War of 1979, Eritrea-Ethiopia War of 1998-2000 and Nigeria-Cameroon armed conflict over oil rich Bekasi Peninsula referred to either people or resources for their well-being.

There is yet another difference between a

state and an individual in the domain of

security.

In the human security paradigm,

an individual is referent to security

but not a securitizing actor.

In the traditional security paradigm, a

state is both a referent to security and a securitizing

actor.

PARADIGM DIFFERENCE

HUMAN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Human security and human rights both are, however, used and understood by some as interchangeable terms. There are concrete threads linking both, human security is an umbrella term that encompasses human rights also in its broader folds.

ABSOLUTE SECURITY

The attainment of absolute security in the human society is

a difficult proposition in the

world where various actors are playing their role, positive

and negative.

Is there any country in the world where people enjoy total security?

USA?

But it has one of the worrisome crime statistics in the world. And so on…..

ANALYSIS

Human security can be analyzed on comparative basis.

A person living in a developed country, despite the state of crime, has better access to justice and opportunities.

Conversely, a person living in a poor country would have issues even with the basis of life including food, health, security of life and property etc.

Thus, security needs to be managed in a manner that people enjoy at least relative security if not absolute security.

Origin

Following the demise of Cold War, numerous outlooks, approaches and theories appeared on the security horizon of the world, particularly by The Copenhagen School.Barry Buzan from the Copenhagen School, can be considered as the pioneer of the concept of human security even though he did not coin the term. He challenged the purely state-centric concept of security and postulated that ultimate referent object of security should be the individual.

The concept of human security also received theoretical stimulus from Liberalism. In terms of security referent that is individual, it is considered to be related theoretically to the Liberal School of Thought in international relations and security studies.

TABLE SHOWING THE COMPARISON BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND HUMAN SECURITY

Traditional National Security

Human Security

Security of whom (the referent) Primarily the state Primarily the individual

Security of what values

Territorial integrity and national independence

Personal safety and individual freedom

Security from what threats

Direct threats from other states

Direct threats from state and non-state

actors + indirect threats

Security by what means

Force as the primary instrument of security

Humane government as the key instrument

of security

TYPES OF HUMAN SECURITY AND RELATED THREATS

Economic SecurityAccess to secure

income and employment

Health SecurityAccess to curative

medicines and clean water

Food SecurityPhysical and

economic access to food

Persistent poverty,Unemployment

Unsafe food,Malnutrition

Hunger,Famine

Community security

Protection of community and ethnic groups

Personal securitySafety against

violence and crime

Environmental degradation

Identity based tensions

Physical violence

Political securityRight to vote

Environmental securityProtection of land, air

and water

Human rights abuses

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Born out of the ashes of World War (II), the UN was overwhelmed by the shadows of war and thus stated security from the beginning.

“We, the peoples of United Nations are determined to

save succeeding generations from the

scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought

untold sorrow to mankind…”

ISLAM AND HUMAN SECURITY

The word “Islam” literally means “peace”. Peace and security are used synonymously when practically applied to inter-state and inter-human affairs. Thus, Islam signifies peace and stands for security. The Quranic concept of human rights is a complete paradigm of human security. A number of Ahadith (sayings) of Holy Prophet (PBUH) refer to what we understand today as the concept of human security.

Conclusion

Defining human security has remained as complex and compound as are human needs and nature themselves. Numerous scholars, policy makers and human rights experts have tried to introduce different terms in this realm. However the debate continues.