Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Human security
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Concept== ===UNDP's 1994 definition=== [[Mahbub ul Haq]] first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the [[United Nations Development Programme]]'s 1994 ''Human Development Report'' and sought to influence the UN's 1995 [[Commission for Social Development|World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen]]. The UNDP's 1994 [[Human Development Report]]'s definition of human security argues that the scope of global security should be expanded to include ''threats in seven areas'': [[File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg|thumb|right|300px|Coloured world map indicating [[Human Development Index]] ({{as of|2008|lc=y}}). [[List of countries by Human Development Index|Countries]] coloured green exhibit high human development, those coloured yellow/orange exhibit medium human development, and those coloured red exhibit low human development.]] [[File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg|thumb|300px|The 2003 map]] *'''Economic security''' – [[Economic security]] requires an assured [[basic income]] for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world's people are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in [[developing countries]], concern also arises in developed countries as well. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and [[Ethnicity|ethnic]] violence. *'''Food security''' – [[Food security]] requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According to the [[United Nations]], the overall availability of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack of [[purchasing power]]. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to the UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to economic security). *'''Health security''' – [[Health security]] aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy [[lifestyle (sociology)|lifestyle]]s. In developing countries, the major causes of death traditionally were [[infectious disease|infectious]] and [[parasitic disease]]s, whereas in industrialized countries, the major killers were diseases of the [[circulatory system]]. Today, lifestyle-related chronic diseases are leading killers worldwide, with 80 percent of deaths from chronic diseases occurring in low- and middle-income countries.<ref>World Health Organization, "Chronic Diseases" http://www.who.int/topics/chronic_diseases/en/</ref> According to the [[United Nations]], in both developing and industrial countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas, particularly children. This is due to [[malnutrition]] and insufficient access to health services, clean water and other basic necessities. *'''Environmental security''' – [[Environmental security]] aims to protect people from the short- and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the [[natural environment]]. In developing countries, lack of access to clean [[water resources]] is one of the greatest environmental threats. In industrial countries, one of the major threats is [[air pollution]]. [[Global warming]], caused by the emission of [[greenhouse gases]], is another [[environmental peacebuilding|environmental security issue]]. *'''Personal security''' – [[Security of person|Personal security]] aims to protect people from physical [[violence]], whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors, from [[domestic abuse]], or from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is [[crime]], particularly violent crime. *'''Community security''' – [[Societal security|Community security]] aims to protect people from the loss of traditional [[interpersonal relationship|relationships]] and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly minority [[ethnic group]]s are often threatened. About half of the world's states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million Aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence. *'''Political security''' – [[Political security]] is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey conducted by [[Amnesty International]], [[political repression]], systematic torture, ill-treatment, or [[forced disappearance|disappearance]] was still practised in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information.<ref>Oz Hassan (2015) Political security: From 1990 to the Arab Spring https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569775.2014.993907].</ref> Since then, human security has been receiving more attention from key global development institutions, such as the [[World Bank]]. Tadjbakhsh, among others, traces the evolution of human security in international organizations, concluding that the concept has been manipulated and transformed considerably since 1994 to fit organizational interests.<ref>{{Cite web |title=HUMAN SECURITY IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: BLESSING OR SCOURGE? |url=http://www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/journal/issue4pdf/issue4_guestEditorial_Tadjbakhsh.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100215124304/http://www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/journal/issue4pdf/issue4_guestEditorial_Tadjbakhsh.pdf |archive-date=2010-02-15 |access-date=2022-10-04}}</ref> ===Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want and beyond=== In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats (and perhaps others as a broader discussion might prioritize) would receive adequate global attention and resources. Yet attempts to implement this human security agenda have led to the emergence of two major schools of thought on how to best practice human security – ''''''"Freedom from Fear"'''''' and ''''''"Freedom from Want"''''''. While the UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security requires attention to both ''freedom from fear'' and ''freedom from want,'' divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over what [[Wiktionary:threat|threats]] [[individuals]] should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these threats. *'''[[Freedom from fear|Freedom from Fear]]''' – This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of [[state capacity]] and other forms of inequities. This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach towards Human Security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, and peace-building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy. However, whether such a “narrow” approach can truly serve its purpose in guaranteeing more fruitful results remains to be an issue. For instance, the conflicts in Darfur are often used in questioning the effectiveness of the "Responsibility to Protect”, a key component of the Freedom from Fear agenda. *'''Freedom from Want''' – The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity<ref name="UNDP 1994"/> and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.<ref name="HSC">{{Cite web |title=アダルト総合情報サイト【アダルトインフォnavi】 |url=https://www.humansecurityreport.info/ |access-date=2022-10-04 |website=有料アダルト動画情報サイト【アダルトインフォnavi】2022年8月度版 |language=ja}}</ref> Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and security goals. Despite their differences, these two approaches to human security can be considered complementary rather than contradictory.<ref name="HSC"/> Expressions to this effect include: *[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s famous [[Four Freedoms]] speech of 1941, in which "Freedom from Want" is characterized as the third and "Freedom from Fear" is the fourth such fundamental, universal, freedom. *The Government of Japan considers Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be equal in developing Japan's foreign policy. Moreover, the UNDP 1994 called for the world's attention to both agendas. *[[Surin Pitsuwan]], the Secretary-General of [[ASEAN]] in 2008-2012 cites theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Hume to conclude that "human security is the primary purpose of organizing a state in the beginning.".<ref>Pitsuwan, Surin. Regional Cooperation for Human Security. Keynote address to the International Development Studies Conference on Human Security: The Asian Contribution. October 2007. [http://humansecurityconf.polsci.chula.ac.th/Documents/Transcriptions/Keynote%20Speech%20on%20Regional%20Cooperation%20for%20Human%20Security.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110818034234/http://humansecurityconf.polsci.chula.ac.th/Documents/Transcriptions/Keynote%20Speech%20on%20Regional%20Cooperation%20for%20Human%20Security.pdf |date=2011-08-18 }}</ref> He goes on to observe that the 1994 Human Development Report states that it is "reviving this concept" and suggests that the authors of the 1994 HDR may be alluding to Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech without literally citing that presentation. Although "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" are the most commonly referred to categories of human security practice, an increasing number of alternative ideas continue to emerge on how to best practice human security. Among them: *'''[[Paul James (academic)|Paul James]]'''.<ref name="James">{{Cite book | year= 2014 | last1= James | first1= Paul | author-link1= Paul James (academic) | chapter= Human Security as a Left-Over of Military Security, or as Integral to the Human Condition | title= Human Security and Japan's Triple Disaster | editor= Paul Bacon and Christopher Hobson | chapter-url= https://www.academia.edu/7716521| publisher= Routledge | location= London}}</ref> James asks two apparently simple questions: Firstly, why, if 'the human’ as a category by definition encompasses all considerations of governance, the state and the military, does military security continue to be treated as prior, more significant, or even equal to human security. By contrast, "when children play ‘category’ games", he says, "they implicitly understand such issues of ordering". Secondly, why does human security get narrowly defined in terms of liberal notions of 'freedom': freedom from want and freedom from fear? In response to these two questions, he provides the following alternative definition, with human security encompassing military security: ::Human security can be defined as one of the foundational conditions of being human, including both (1) the sustainable protection and provision of the material conditions for meeting the embodied needs of people, and (2) the protection of the variable existential conditions for maintaining a dignified life. Within this definition, it then makes sense that the core focus of human-security endeavours should be on the most vulnerable. It makes sense that risk management should be most responsive to immediate events or processes that have both an extensive and intensive impact in producing material and existential vulnerabilities of people in general or a category of persons across a particular locale.<ref name="James"/>{{rp|87}} *'''G. King and C. Murray'''.<ref>King, Gary and Christopher Murray. Rethinking Human Security. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.116, No.4 #585-610 [http://gking.harvard.edu/files/hs.pdf online]</ref> King and Murray try to narrow down the human security definition to one's "expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized poverty". In their definition, the "generalized poverty" means "falling below critical thresholds in any domain of well-being"; and it is in the same article, they give a brief review and categories of "Domains of Well-being". This set of definitions is similar to "freedom from want" but more concretely focused on some value system. *'''Caroline Thomas'''.<ref name="Thomas, 2001"/><ref>See also in {{Cite journal | last = Alkire | first = Sabina | author-link = Sabina Alkire | title = A conceptual framework for human security - working paper no. 2 | journal = Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), Queen Elizabeth House | year = 2002 | url = http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13003/1/workingpaper2.pdf | access-date = 2014-04-17 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234642/http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13003/1/workingpaper2.pdf | archive-date = 2014-04-18 | url-status = dead }}</ref> She regards human security as describing "a condition of existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global. *'''Roland Paris'''.<ref name="Paris"/> He argues that many ways to define "human security" are related to a certain set of values and lose the neutral position. So he suggests to take human security as a category of research. As such, he gives a 2*2 matrix to illustrate the security studies field. {| class="wikitable" |- ! style="background:#efefef;" | Security for Whom? ! colspan="2" style="background:#ffdead;" | What is the Source of the Security Threat? |- | style="background:#efefef;" | | style="background:#ffdead;" | Military | style="background:#ffdead;" | Military, Non-military, or Both |- | style="background:#efefef;" | States | National security (conventional realist approach to security studies) | Redefined security (e.g., environmental and economic [cooperative or comprehensive] security) |- | style="background:#efefef;" | Societies, Groups, and Individuals | Intrastate security (e.g., civil war, ethnic conflict, and democide) | Human security (e.g., environmental and economic threats to the survival of societies, groups, and individuals) |} *'''[[Sabina Alkire]]'''.<ref name=Alkire>{{Cite journal | last = Alkire | first = Sabina | author-link = Sabina Alkire | title = A conceptual framework for human security - working paper no. 2 | journal = Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), Queen Elizabeth House | year = 2002 | url = http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13003/1/workingpaper2.pdf | access-date = 2014-04-17 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234642/http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13003/1/workingpaper2.pdf | archive-date = 2014-04-18 | url-status = dead }}</ref> Different with those approaches seek to narrow down and specify the objective of human security, Sabina Alkire pushes the idea a step further as "to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, without impeding long-term human fulfilment". In a concept as such, she suggests the "vital core" cover a minimal or basic or fundamental set of functions related to survival, livelihood and dignity; and all institutions should at least and necessarily protect the core from any intervention. *'''[[Lyal S. Sunga]]'''.<ref>Sunga, Lyal S. (2009). "The Concept of Human Security: Does it Add Anything of Value to International Legal Theory or Practice?" in Power and Justice in International Relations Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Challenges Power and Justice in International Relations (Edited by Marie-Luisa Frick and Andreas Oberprantacher) 2009 Ashgate Publishers [http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&pageSubject=322&title_id=9794&edition_id=12249]</ref> In 2009, Professor Sunga argued that a concept of human security that is fully informed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international refugee law, and which takes into account the relevant international legal norms prohibiting the use of force in international relations, will likely prove more valuable to international legal theory and practice over the longer term, than a concept of human security which does not meet these conditions because these fields of law represent the objectified political will of States rather than the more subjective biases of scholars. The first university textbook of human security, edited by Alexander Lautensach and Sabina Lautensach,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Alexander Lautensach and Sabina Lautensach |first=Eds |url=https://opentextbc.ca/humansecurity/ |title=Human Security in World Affairs: Problems and Opportunities (2nd edition) |date=2020-09-08 |publisher=BCcampus & University of Northern British Columbia |isbn=978-1-77420-077-3 |language=en-ca}} </ref> appeared in open access form in 2020. According to their Four Pillar Model, human security rests on the four pillars of sociopolitical security, economic security, environmental security and health security. Because of its focus on the long term as well as on immediate needs, the environmental pillar of human security assumes prime significance. It necessitates our attention to the utter dependence of human welfare on the integrity of ecological support structures. ===Relationship with traditional security=== {{see also|Political realism}} Coined in the early 1990s, the term human security has been used by thinkers who have sought to shift the discourse on security away from its traditional state-centered orientation to the protection and advancement of individuals within societies.<ref name="MacFarlane">{{Cite news |last=IkenberrySeptember/October 2006 |first=G. John |date=2009-01-28 |title=Human Security and the UN: A Critical History |language=en-US |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2006-09-01/human-security-and-un-critical-history |access-date=2022-10-04 |issn=0015-7120}}</ref><ref name="Arcudi, 2006">Arcudi, Giovanni (2006). [http://www.cairn.info/publications-de-Arcudi-Giovanni--30998.htm “La sécurité entre permanence et changement”], ''Relations Internationales,'' Vol. 1, No. 125, pp. 97-109. ISSN 0335-2013, [http://www.cairn.info/revue-relations-internationales-2006-1-page-97.htm DOI 10.3917/ri.125.0097]</ref> Human security emerged as a challenge to ideas of traditional security, but human and traditional or [[national security]] are not [[mutually exclusive]] concepts. It has been argued that, without human security, traditional state security cannot be attained and vice versa.<ref name="HSC"/> [[Image:Europe map 1648.PNG|thumb|300px|Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648]] '''Traditional security''' is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional security (often referred to as [[national security]] or [[Security agency|state security]]) describes the philosophy of international security predominance since the [[Peace of Westphalia]] in 1648 and the rise of the [[nation-states]]. While [[international relations theory]] includes many variants of traditional security, from [[Realism (international relations)|realism]] to [[liberalism]], the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus on the primacy of the [[nation-state]]. The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives: {| class="wikitable" |- ! ! Traditional Security ! Human Security |- | Referent | Traditional security policies are designed to promote demands ascribed to the state. Other interests are subordinated to those of the state. Traditional security protects a state's boundaries, people, institutions and values. | Human security is people-centered. Its focus shifts to protecting individuals. The important dimensions are to entail the well-being of individuals and respond to ordinary people's needs in dealing with sources of threats. |- | Scope | Traditional security seeks to defend states from external [[aggression]]. [[Walter Lippmann]] explained that state security is about a state's ability to deter or defeat an attack.<ref>Walter Lippmann, U.S. Foreign Policy (Boston, 1943), p.51</ref> It makes use of deterrence strategies to maintain the integrity of the state and protect the territory from external threats. | In addition to protecting the state from external aggression, human security would expand the scope of protection to include a broader range of threats, including environmental pollution, [[infectious diseases]], and economic deprivation. |- | Actor(s) | The state is the sole actor. Decision-making power is centralized in the government. Traditional security assumes that a sovereign state is operating in an anarchical international environment, in which there is no world governing body to enforce international rules of conduct. | The realization of human security involves not only governments, but a broader participation of different actors,<ref name="Jeong">Jeong Ho-Won (undated): Human Security and Conflict. George Mason University. [http://www.gmu.edu/academic/hsp/Jeong.htm online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228175704/http://www.gmu.edu/academic/hsp/Jeong.htm |date=2009-02-28 }}</ref> viz. regional and international organizations, non-governmental organizations and local communities. |- | Means | Traditional security relies upon building up national power and military defense. The common forms it takes are armament races, alliances, strategic boundaries, etc. | Human security not only protects but also empowers people and societies as a means of security. People contribute by identifying and implementing solutions to insecurity. |} ===Relationship with development=== {{see also|International development|Development economics}} Human security also challenged and drew from the practice of international [[Development studies|development]]. Traditionally, embracing liberal market economics was considered to be the universal path for [[economic growth]], and thus [[Development studies|development]] for all humanity.<ref name="Thomas, 2001"/> Yet, continuing conflict and human rights abuses following the end of the Cold War and the fact that two-thirds of the global population seemed to have gained little from the economic gains of [[globalization]],<ref>see ''Financial Times'', 24 December 1994 and ''New York Times'', 15 July 1996: 55</ref> led to fundamental questions about the way [[Development studies|development]] was practiced. Accordingly, human development has emerged in the 1990s to challenge the dominant paradigm of liberal economy in the development community. Human development proponents argue that economic growth is insufficient to expand people's choices or capabilities, areas such as health, education, technology, the environment, and employment should not be neglected. Human security could be said to further enlarge the scope for examining the causes and consequences of [[underdevelopment]], by seeking to bridge the divide between development and security. Too often, militaries didn't address or factor in the underlying causes of violence and insecurity while development workers often underplayed the vulnerability of development models to violent conflict. Human security springs from a growing consensus that these two fields need to be more fully integrated in order to enhance security for all. The paper "Development and Security" by Frances Stewart argues that security and development are deeply interconnected.<ref>Stewart, Frances (2004). "Development and Security", Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security, and Ethnicity (CRISE), Working Paper 3, London: University of Oxford.</ref> *''Human security forms an important part of people’s well-being, and is therefore an objective of development.''<br> An objective of development is “the enlargement of human choices”. Insecurity cuts life short and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the reaching of this objective. *''Lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth, and therefore development.''<br> Some development costs are obvious. For example, in [[wars]], people who join the army or flee can no longer work productively. Also, destroying infrastructure reduces the productive capacity of the economy. *''Imbalanced development that involves horizontal inequalities is an important source of conflict.''<br> Therefore, vicious cycles of lack of development which leads to conflict, then to lack of development, can readily emerge. Likewise, virtuous cycles are possible, with high levels of security leading to development, which further promotes security in return. Further, it could also be said that the practice of human development and human security share three fundamental elements:<ref name=Alkire /> * First, human security and human development are both '''people-centered'''. They challenge the orthodox approach to security and development i.e. state security and liberal economic growth respectively. Both emphasize people are to be the ultimate ends but not means. Both treat humans as agents and should be empowered to participate in the course. * Second, both perspectives are '''multidimensional'''. Both address people's dignity as well as their material and physical concerns. * Third, both schools of thought consider '''[[poverty]] and [[social inequality|inequality]] as the root causes of individual vulnerability'''. Despite these similarities, the relationship with development is one of the most contested areas of human security. "Freedom from fear" advocates, such as Andrew Mack, argue that human security should focus on the achievable goals of decreasing individual vulnerability to violent conflict, rather than broadly defined goals of economic and social development. Others, such as Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy, argue that human development and human security are inextricably linked since progress in one enhances the chances of progress in another while failure in one increases the risk of failure of another.<ref>Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, Human Security: ''Concepts and implications'', London: Routledge, 2006</ref> The following table is adopted from Tadjbakhsh<ref>S Tadjbakhsh, “Human Security”, 'Human Development Insights Issue 17, New York: UNDP HDR Networks</ref> to help clarify the relationship between these two concepts. {| class="wikitable" |- ! Variables ! Human Development ! Human Security |- | ''Values'' | Well-being. | Security, stability, sustainability of development gains |- | ''Orientation'' | Moves forward, is progressive and aggregate: “Together we rise” | Looks at who was left behind at the individual level: “Divided we fall” |- | ''Time Frame'' | Long term | Combines short-term measures to deal with risks with long-term prevention efforts. |- | ''General objectives'' | Growth with equity. Expanding the choices and opportunities of people to lead lives they value. | “Insuring” downturns with security. Identification of risks, prevention to avoid them through dealing with root causes, preparation to mitigate them, and cushioning when disaster strikes. |- | ''Policy goals'' | [[Empowerment]], [[sustainability]], equity and productivity. | Protection and promotion of human survival (freedom from fear), daily life (freedom from want), and the avoidance of indignities (life of [[dignity]]). |} ===Relationship with human rights=== {{see also|Human rights}} Human security is indebted to the [[human rights]] tradition (the ideas of [[natural law]] and [[natural rights]]). The development of the human security model can be seen to have drawn upon ideas and concepts fundamental to the [[human rights]] tradition. Both approaches use the individual as the main referent and both argue that a wide range of issues (i.e. [[civil and political rights|civil rights]], cultural identity, [[right to education|access to education]] and [[right to health|healthcare]]) are fundamental to human dignity. A major difference between the two models is in their approach to addressing threats to human dignity and survival. Whilst the [[human rights]] framework takes a legalistic approach, the human security framework, by utilizing a diverse range of actors, adopts flexible and issue-specific approaches, which can operate at local, national or international levels. The nature of the relationship between human security and [[human rights]] is contested among human security advocates. Some human security advocates argue that the goal of human security should be to build upon and strengthen the existing global human rights legal framework.<ref name="Hampson, 2002">Hampson, F., ''Madness in the multitude: human security and world disorder,'' Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2002</ref> However, other advocates view the [[human rights]] legal framework as part of the global insecurity problem and believe that a human security approach should propel us to move above and beyond this legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of [[social inequality|inequality]] and violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's world.<ref name="Thomas, 2001">Thomas, C., (2001) “Global governance, development and human security: exploring the links,” ''Third World Quarterly,'' Vol. 22(2):159-175</ref> ===Relationship with non-governmental organizations=== [[Non-governmental organization|See also: Non-governmental organization]] The term NGO (Non-Government Organisation) cannot be simply defined due to complexities surrounding its structure, environment and complex relations it shares with its internal factions; being its organisational mission, membership and sources of funding, and external factors such as the relationship it shares with actors; detailing the economic, political and societal constructs they may be bound by. A generic understanding of the term may refer to the actions taken in the interests of independent, voluntary contributors which exist independently from governments and corporations, designed to represent and provide a collective voice to individuals regarding issues. These issues cover contributions to the fields and industries of human development, health and nutrition, human rights and education, and environmental concerns; all of which influence and affect human security. The traditional roles of NGOs may be classified into three components, in accordance with Lewis:<ref>Lewis Opoku-Mensah, Paul and Lewis, David and Tvedt, Terje, eds (2007) Reconceptualising NGOs and their roles in development: NGOs, civil society and the international aid system Aalborg University Press, Aalborg, Denmark</ref> - Implementer: refers to the mobilisation of resources in order to aid the provision of goods and services, such as the act of service delivery. - Catalyst: refers to the emotional and psychological aspect of the NGOs ability to inspire, facilitate or contribute to spur action or thinking. - Partner: refers to the NGOs relationships shared with external actors such as governments, donors or the private sector players through joint activities, or projects with communities, with the purpose to strengthen the relationship between the NGOs and these partners in a mutually beneficial fashion. The expansion of these roles have culminated in assisting the creation of a society where NGOs serve as important players in the global arena in regards to maintaining human security. Due to this increasing influence and the emergence of growing natural and man-made disasters, NGOs now are contracted by governments in order to adequately respond to crises, as well as assist individual or collectivised groups of citizens in lobbying their interests; thus culminating in the ability to enact, influence and change government agendas. However, NGOs are still largely dependent on certain levels of government funding, hence critics may argue that NGOs pose the ability to potentially damage issues of human security due to this financial dependence. Despite these critiques, the focus, expertise and infrastructure developed by NGOs through their activities linked with human development and human rights allow them to make unique contributions to human security provision.<ref>Michael, Sarah. 2002. "The Role of NGOs in Human Security", Working Paper #12, The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations and The Kennedy School of Government Harvard University</ref> ===Relationship with the environment=== Comprehensive human security attempts to unify environmental security together with social (societal) security. A great number of intertwined environmental and social components together create the framework for comprehensive human security under the assumption that neither of those two categories is attainable in the long run without synergy between the two.<ref name=Westing>{{cite book|last=Westing|first=Arthur|title=Arthur H. Westing: Pioneer on the Environmental Impact of War|year=2013|publisher=Springer|isbn=9783642313226|pages=15–16|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=l-MauhNN-SAC&q=Pioneer+on+the+environmental+impact+of+war}}</ref> That is to say that the trends in environmental, resource, and population stresses are intensifying and will increasingly determine the quality of human life on our planet and as such are a large determining factor of our social security.<ref name="Pirages, DeGeest">{{cite book|last1=Pirages |last2 = DeGeest|first1=Dennis |first2=Theresa Manley|author-link1=Dennis C. Pirages |title=Ecological Security: An Evolutionary Perspective on Globalization|year=2004|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=9780847695010|pages=59–60|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SFA2CcxvwSkC}}</ref> [[Arthur H. Westing]] posits that the two interdependent branches of comprehensive human security can be broken down into a series of subcomponents to better achieve optimal environmental and social security. [[Environmental security]] is composed of two subcomponents: (a) Rational resource utilization, that is resource use that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”<ref name="UN Brundtland">{{cite web|title=UN Global Issues, Environment|url=https://www.un.org/en/globalissues/environment/|work=he Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”|access-date=5 November 2012}}</ref> Social security can be simplified to components of (a) Established political safeguards, (b) Economic safeguards, (c) Personal safeguards, and (d) Military safeguards.<ref name=Westing /> The [[International Institute for Sustainable Development]] (IISD) states that a major goal of comprehensive human security is to “transmit practical recommendations to policy-makers on how to strengthen human security through better environmental management and more effective natural resource governance.”<ref name=IISD>{{cite web|title=Environment and Human Security|url=http://www.iisd.org/ecp/es/|publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development|access-date=5 November 2012|archive-date=5 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121205073058/http://www.iisd.org/ecp/es/|url-status=dead}}</ref> The overreaching goal being a pervasive global mindset that recognizes the interdependent natures of the natural environment and our collective social security. ===Gender and human security=== Human security focuses on the serious neglect of [[gender]] concerns under the traditional security model. Traditional security's focus on external military threats to the state has meant that the majority of threats women face have been overlooked. It has recently been argued that these forms of violence are often overlooked because expressions of masculinity in contexts of war have become the norm.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Coomaraswamy|first1=Radhika|title=Human Security and Gender Violence|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|date=October 29 – November 4, 2005|volume=40|issue= 44/45|pages=4729–4736|jstor=4417359}}</ref> By focusing on the individual, the human security model aims to address the security concerns of both women and men equally. However, as of recent conflicts, it is believed that the majority of war casualties are civilians and that "such a conclusion has sometimes led to the assumptions that women are victimized by war to a greater extent than men, because the majority of adult civilians are women, and when the populations of civilian women and children are added together, they outnumber male combatants. Furthermore, in the post-war context women survivors generally outnumber men and so it is often said that women as a group bear a greater burden for post-war recovery".<ref name="Gender Matters in Global Politics">{{cite book|last1=Pankhurst|first1=Donna|editor1-last=Shepherd|editor1-first=Laura J.|title=Gender Matters in Global Politics|date=2015|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|isbn=978-0-415-71521-8|pages=159–170|edition=2nd}}</ref> Women are often victims of [[violence against women|violence]] and conflict: they form the majority of civilian deaths; the majority of refugees; and, are often the victims of cruel and degrading practices, such as rape.<ref name='Haq, 1999'>Haq, K., 'Human Security for Women,' in Tehranian, M. (ed.),''Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance'', London, I.B.Tauris Publishers, 1999.</ref>{{rp|96}} Women's security is also threatened by unequal access to resources, services and opportunities.<ref name='Haq, 1999'/>{{rp|97–100}} The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, as of 1995, suggested that the problem is not just a social one, but requires evaluation of the political institutions which uphold the unequal system of domination.<ref>{{cite web|title=The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/15YearReviewofVAWMandate.pdf|website=Office Of the High Commissioner|publisher=United Nations|access-date=30 September 2017}}</ref> [[Women's rights]] are neglected especially in the Middle East and Southeast Asian regions where customary practices are still prevalent. Although there are different opinions on the issue of customary practices, it infringes upon human security's notion that women and men are innated with equal human rights. Attempts to eradicate such violent customary practices require political and legal approaches where human security in relation to gender should be brought up as the main source of assertion. Such cruel customary practices as honor killing, burning brides and widows, child marriage are still in existence because of women's vulnerability in economic independence and security. Human security in relationship to gender tries to overthrow such traditional practices that are incompatible to the rights of women. Also, human security seeks to empower women, through education, participation and access, as gender equality is seen as a necessary precondition for peace, security and a prosperous society.<ref name='Haq, 1999'/>{{rp|105–107}} === Feminist critiques of human security === ==== Rape as a weapon of war theory ==== During times of conflict, certain varieties of masculinity come to be celebrated by the State, and these varieties of behaviors can influence how a population's combatants come to behave, or are expected to behave during crises. These behaviors range from acting aggressively and exemplifying hyper-masculine behaviors, to playing upon the rise of "nationalist or ethnic consciousness" to secure "political support for the cause and to undermine "the Other".<ref name="Gender Matters in Global Politics"/> Overtly militaristic societies have utilized rape and other sexually violent acts to further their gains within the context of war, but also by using such practices of violence as rewards to the (often male) combatants. This tactic undermines the enemy's morale, as they are seen as "unable to protect their women".<ref name="Gender Matters in Global Politics"/> ==== The category of human ==== Recent feminist critiques of Human Security often find difficulties with the concept and categorization of "Human". This categorization is made under the influence of certain value systems which are inherently exclusive by their nature. For instance, the liberal definition of "human" is: someone that is independent and capable of making decisions for themselves.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Nussbaum|first1=Martha C.|title=Sex and Social Justice|date=24 August 2000|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195112108}}</ref> This definition is problematic because it excludes persons who are not independent, such as persons with disabilities, from human security rights. If Human Security was to be entirely inclusive it would need to challenge the current definition of "human" on which it operates and acknowledge that different abilities also require rights.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Marhia|first1=Natasha|title=Some humans are more Human than Others: Troubling the 'human' in human security from a critical feminist perspective|journal=Security Dialogue|date=February 11, 2013|volume=44|issue=1|pages=19–35|doi=10.1177/0967010612470293|s2cid=145219768}}</ref> ==== Eurocentrism ==== The concept of human security has developed out of the precepts put forth by the United Nations, wherein there has been a critique of Human Security's focus on what is deemed acceptable behaviors.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite book|last1=Shepherd|first1=Laura J.|title=Gender Matters in Global Politics|date=2015|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|isbn=978-0-415-71521-8|edition=2nd}}</ref> Human security perspectives view practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation as a threat to human (more specifically female) security and well-being in the Global North, while it is more common that these events occur predominately in the Global Southern states. Thus it is seen by states with a traditional human security outlook, to see it as their duty to intervene and perpetuate this eurocentric ideal of what human security looks like, and what is best to protect the familiar concept of women.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> This can be seen as an infringement on the traditional practices found within some sovereign states of the Global South, and a threat to ways of life and processes of development. ===Prevent, react, and rebuild=== {{see also|Responsibility to protect}} Human security seeks to address underlying causes and long-term implications of conflicts instead of simply reacting to problems, as the traditional security approach is often accused of doing. "The basic point of preventive efforts is, of course, to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the need for intervention altogether,"<ref name="ICISS">ICISS "The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty", Ottawa: International Development Research Council, 2001.</ref>{{rp|19}} while an investment in rehabilitation or rebuilding seeks to ensure that former conflicts do not breed future violence. The concepts of prevention and rebuilding are clearly embraced as the “responsibility to prevent” and well elaborated in "The [[Responsibility to protect]] report of the [[International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty]]."
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)