Editing Human security (section)

===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.