Human Security Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The human security discourse dates back to the Human Development Report 1994, published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), subtitled New Dimensions of Human Security. The catchphrase definition has become “freedom from fear and freedom from want.” In 2003, the Commission on Human Security (initiated by the Japanese government, and working closely with the UN) formulated the following main characteristics, published in 2003 by Sadako Ogata, Amartya Sen, and others as Human Security Now:

Human security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development. It seeks to protect people against a broad range of threats to individuals and communities and, further, to empower them to act on their own behalf. And it seeks to forge a global alliance to strengthen the institutional policies that link individuals and the state—and the state within a global world. . . . The Commission on Human Security’s definition of human security: to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment. (2–4)

Conceptually, human security breaks with the dominant referent objects of security—the territorial state and the national state. It instead puts the individual and nonstate communities in the spotlight. The main concern is no longer the state (national or state security), nor traditional warfare (military security). Security must be about humanity at every level, on every scale: individuals, (small) groups, and humanity.

Advocates of the concept argue that state-centric analyses of “international” security fall short of understanding contemporary dynamics of existential threats to people. This implies a world-society perspective that entails an analysis of how 6.6 billion individuals organize (or disorganize) their lives. Critics emphasize that even from such a perspective, the distinction between external and internal dimensions of social life resurfaces: as soon as social organization occurs, borders are formed, which imply an inside-outside logic. Hence, the referent object of human security moves back from the individual and humanity to social institutions: How do groups relate to each other and how do individuals relate to groups? Economic globalization and political integration have changed the meaning of sovereignty, but sovereign states continue to play a dominant role among these groups. In practice, the human security literature focuses mainly on (correcting) state behavior and fits in the wider discourse on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

In some countries, human security has led to reforms in military training and strategy, particularly in Canada and Norway, and in 2003 the European Union (EU) Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities presented a report titled A Human Security Doctrine for Europe, pleading a similar course for the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). In 1999, the Human Security Network was established as “a group of like-minded countries from all regions of the world that, at the level of Foreign Ministers, maintains dialogue on questions pertaining to human security.” In June 2008, thirteen states participated in this network.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, the literature on human security mainly focuses on interventions in the developing world. It expresses concerns well-known from the fields of development studies and conflict management, and adds a proactive attitude. Human security is typically applied as a Northern or Western concept highlighting the urge to improve the human rights situation in many developing countries; there is a striking neglect of human security issues within Western states.

Advocates of the concept argue that peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peace building cannot be successful without a human security perspective. Skeptics argue that contemporary politics overestimate the margins for change, and this brings human security policies into the sphere of either utopianism or disguised traditional power politics.

Human security policies can come top-down, initiated by governments or international organizations, and bottom-up, as local self-help initiatives. In cases of a failing or repressive government, the public sector has lost its protective functions. A retracting government runs the same risk. In the absence of a well-functioning public sector, people have no choice but to create self-help structures to provide a minimum of protection. Bottom-up policies—or human security from below— in these circumstances is about resistance and liberation or about making day-to-day life more bearable. The interaction between top-down and bottom-up human security policies is important because a successful human security policy needs roots in society as well as third-party support. Regardless of how local a conflict or lack of basic needs may be, these issues are always embedded in regional and often global contexts. Outside actors within these structures have a choice to determine their level of direct involvement, but cannot escape their responsibility to at least make up their minds. The human security discourse addresses this responsibility.

Human security is also put forth as a concept to change traditional operational military practices. Combining the traditional military spirit with the mindset of police officers and development workers creates a strong incentive to talk about human security because it highlights the changing nature of coercive power in world politics. The traditional division of labor between military, police, and intelligence is in jeopardy. UN peacekeeping has become police work with military means; globalization has increased perceptions of substate violence; network terrorism works along similar lines as transnational organized crime; with more than 50 percent of the world population living in urbanized areas, many security and development issues are about governing and managing densely populated areas. The shift from state security to human security captures many of the dilemmas involved in the contemporary use of violence. Critics, however, point at the risk of widening the concept of security too much and perhaps encompassing every threat to ordinary life.

Bibliography:

Den Boer, Monica, and Jaap de Wilde, eds. The Viability of Human Security. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.
Ogata, Sadako, Amartya Sen, et al. Human Security Now: Final Report of the Commission on Human Security. New York: Commission on Higher Security, 2003. http://humansecurity-chs.org/finalreport.
Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities. “A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: Report of the Barcelona Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities.” In A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: Project, Principles, Practicalities, edited by Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor. London: Routledge, 2006.
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press for the United Nations Development Programme, 1994. http://hdr. undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/.

This example Human Security Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.