Is the concept of human security useful?
by Luke Pring
Ask for permission to reference this work here
Introduction
The debate around human security is an ongoing one. Important conceptual problems have yet to be addressed and resolved. The theory is yet to be concretely defined and thus much debate surrounds the definition and broadness of the idea. This may indeed be the strength of the theorem, it knows no boundaries and thus merits constant debate. A fresh and exciting take on international relations is welcome and I would put forward that the theory is definitely ‘useful’.
In arguing that human security is a useful concept I first seek to introduce and define the theory in its latest version. . Secondly I examine a current project (2009 and yet to be published) undertaken by the Human Security Research Project who have attempted to develop the Human (In-)Security Index (www.humansecurity.de) This Index shows that the concept of human security is useful and applicable to contemporary international relations theory. Finally I briefly explore the concept of human security in light of the environment, humanitarian intervention and child (girl) soldiers.
Overview
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report lays the foundation for human security as an international relations discipline. Human security emerged from this report as a paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities and challenging the Realist and Liberal schools of international relations theory. National, regional and global stability is argued to be dependent on the individual. In essence the theory is implicitly people centred and builds upon post-cold war ideas for development, international relations, strategic studies and human rights. The 1994 report is considered the land mark publication for the advancement of human security as a theory in security studies. The sheer scope of the concept and its various definitions has led to much criticism. These critics point towards the vagueness of the theory and argue that it is ineffective on the international stage.
The UNDP report of 1994 points towards four essential characteristics in the concept of human security. Firstly it is argued that the concept must apply universally and concern the entire world. Second the components that make up the theory are based on interdependence. Thirdly Human security is more easily obtained through early prevention than later intervention. Such an idea is very popular in contemporary conflict resolution with both the UN and EU focusing on preventative operations. Finally the primary concern of security should be the individual, the theory is people centred. (UNDP 1994 :22-23) It is important that Human security is differentiated from the broader concept of human development. The latter is based on trying to widen the range of peoples choices, the former aims to allow these choice to be exercised freely and without menace. Much debate abounds around the realms of each discipline. These can be divided into the broad and narrow schools on human security.
Definitions-Broad vs. Narrow
The Report of the Commission on Human Security (2003) defines the concept as a
‘means for protecting fundamental freedoms…. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strength and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military. And cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival’ (UN, 2003)
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are safe from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. An increase in globalisation and interdependence led to concerns that actions in one place may have effects internationally. Such issues as unresolved development have been seen in Somalia, East Timor and Haiti. This common theme of under development has become interrelated with an increasingly globalized international system. These linkages, although considered vague by some academics create the basis of human security theory.
‘In the final analysis human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons, it is a concern with human life and dignity’
(UNDP 1994:22)
The broad definition offered by the UNDP report encompasses a large area including economic, food, health, environmental, political, personal and community security. This scope makes it difficult for actors to efficiently target areas for human security to be applied. However each area warrants a close examination into whether they effect the individual and thus the international security system as a whole. If something is a threat to security it cannot be ignored merely because it is outside the remit of traditional security practice. Counter to this broad scope would be that of Sabine Alkire (2002) who provides a more focused and narrow view on human security. Focusing essentially on the fundamental aspects Alkire states ‘the objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, and to do so without impeding long term human flourishing’ (2002) Here the critical threat is what should be assessed. Providing a more focused definition allows human security to become more effective as a security tool. Such a broad scale of security concern merits problems in applicability and conceptualisation of the theory.
Supporters suggest that the concept of security has been on states reacting to external aggressors or acting on protecting national interest. They argue that the new referent of security theory should be the individual. The concept of human security highlights the issue of States vs. Individuals as the referents of international order. Traditional international relations theory would suggest that the main actor of a secure world is the nation state. Indeed the focus since the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 has been the sovereign right of the state to decide its internal matters. External threats were treated as security issues and the main threat to the world order. Human security attempts to bypass the nation state and deal directly with the individual and their personal struggles. The safety of the individual is key to global security, a threat to an individual is a threat to international security.
It should be established that human security is a more focused discipline than human development. Modern states can focus human security on dealing with threats to life and physical violence through prevention, protection and empowerment of individuals (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p. 13). Human development and broader issues can be brought in so ‘a conceptual framework leads to a mutually enforcing human security policy which emphasises crisis prevention and crisis management policies at the same time’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.14) Successful management of the broad (development) and the narrow (political violence) schools requires politics that address both their needs. Both the narrow and the broads definitions should be taken into account as the ambition of human security is its shining light, while the narrow school provides a operational framework for immediate implementation. The theory as a whole needs to be developed further but no doubt it is a useful and applicable concept that in the future will gain much momentum.
The Use of Human Security
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are protected from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. The 1994 report from the UNDP focuses on economic, food ,health, environment, personal, community and political security as important areas applicable to the larger communal global security. Human security seeks to protect the individual and empower them to consolidate their personal and national security. The concept explains the basic need for the individual and provides for state security at the same time. They become linked in a symbiotic relationship. In this manner the arguments between the broad and narrow schools can be resolved and the concept applied usefully to strategic operations.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, armed conflicts have occurred mainly within states. War between states has become rare in the current political climate. This position has put human security at the forefront of international politics. Essentially their has been a shift from external threats towards internal struggles that realism and liberalism are unable to deal with. Human security is able to provide a useful analysis and provide solutions for such internal strife. King and Murray highlight that ‘human security has rapidly moved to occupy centre stage in discussions of foreign policy’(King and Murray 2002) This view was backed up in June of 1999 when the G8 declared that they are ‘determined to fight the underlying causes of multiple threats to human security’ (Anxworthy 9 June 1999) Far from being a useless theorem, human security is at the forefront of policy makers at the highest level. The changing nature of security towards a focus on preventative diplomacy and internal pressures makes the individual an important focus. It can be argued that this has always been the case. Individuals have influenced international security far before the UNDP report in 1994. Throughout history events effecting individuals have affected international security. The murder of Caesar in 44BC for example threw the Roman republic into a civil war that resulted in the emergence of an Empire. Such examples abound through history. The persecution of peoples by governments has led to revolutions that have significantly altered the world order. Thus the individual is a worthy referent of security.
With the ability to act collectively states can prevent civil war and genocide in war torn or rogue states. It has begun to be recognised that even territorial security does not guarantee the security of citizens within a state. Examples such as North Korea and Rwanda comply with such a statement (King, p. 388). Canada, Norway and Japan have all implanted human security in their international diplomacy. Canada’s policy albeit less broad than the UNDP definition aims to provide safety for people from both violent and non-violent threats. Their aim is to push towards a system where human security and national security are mutually supportive. Japan have also pioneered a ‘foreign policy with human security playing a central role’ (Obuchi, Keizo 1999) . Human security attempts to address and deal with the underlying causes and implications of a conflict. Traditional security practice is often accused of an intense reaction without any real attempt to resolve the conflict. The basic goal of preventative efforts is to reduce and eliminate the need for intervention all together. While still in its infancy analytically it cannot be denied that the theory of human security is strategically useful.
Human (In) security Project- Human Security in action
Their are however attempts being made to provide analytical data for use in a human security context. The Working Group on Human Security state ‘Our attempt is to operationalize the consensual core of human security while nevertheless sticking closely to UNDP ideas, in other words to measure human insecurity’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009) The aim of the Working Group on Human Security (www.humansecurity.de) is to conceptualise a human (in)security index measuring levels of human security and insecurity. This is measured on 4 Levels, two consisting of levels of human security and two on levels of human insecurity.
0-25 Level One : Human Security
There is no threat to life/survival
25-50 Level Two: Human Security
Some factors affect life/survival but strategies are in place to deal with such threats
50-75 Level Three: Human Insecurity
Some factors affect life/survival and only limited resources and strategies are available to counter these threats
75-100 Level Four: Human Insecurity
Factors affect life/.survival and their are no strategies or means to deal with these threats.
The scale ranges from 1-100 with a rating of 76 or more representing the 4th Level or dangerous human insecurity. Ratings from 0-25 or Level 1 represent a relative level of human security with 25-50 an increase in threat to life at Level 2. A rating of 50-75 tips the scale into Level 3 which is human insecurity. It is argued that their has been no attempt to measure human insecurity taking into account non-violent threats. Thus the group aims to stay close to the original broad definition outlined by the UNDP in 1994.
‘Whilst the narrow understanding of human security concentrates on the protection against physical violence, the broader approach to human security also includes those threats to the well being of humans that are not directly linked to physical violence, that is, life threatening distress (freedom from want) ( Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.17 )
To achieve this measurement the index has operationalized human security through seven dimensions outlined in the UNDP report. These include economic, food, health, environmental, political and personal and community security. The development of such an index allows identification of the threats in a particular country. Such analytical data can be acted on preventing a deterioration to worse levels of human insecurity. Such work will allow human security to become useful and led to analytical refinement allowing improved strategic actions (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.18). Identifying one of the six categories allows actors to deal with the root of the problem. For example a high (dangerous) rating in food (in) security will pinpoint famine. Vulnerabilities can be assessed and responded to. Each of the six categories is based on two variables, for example environmental issues are measured on population affected by disasters and access to water and sanitation. Health is measured on the child mortality rate and population affected by pandemics. Following the calculations Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan , Congo (DRC), Burundi and Ethiopia scored worst in the index. The index showed that only 2 of the top 15 worst performing countries were outside Africa. This highlights the danger of humanitarian/political disaster in the region. The top performers consist mainly of Western Europe with the Scandinavian countries in particular good performers. The top rated country overall was Norway. Other projects such as the miniAtlas funded by the World Bank have also provided analytical data for use in a human security role, albeit on a more narrow scale.
The idea of human security has gained importance in the political realm. It has been included into decision making, policy design and programmatic implementation (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.53) Examples of successful implementation are the Ottawa process on landmines and Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict adopted by the United Nations. Measurements of human (in) security have been lacking and such analytical data is vital to the growth and development of the theory. To conclude ‘the creation of a Human (In) Security index contributes to a refinement of the notion of human security’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.54) and proves the concept can be measured and the information applied in a ‘useful’ manner.
Environmental
Security must also come to terms with the fact that there are non-military threats to contend with along side the traditional military confrontation. Robert Mcnamara introduced the idea that environmental and natural disasters can constitute threats to security (1968). Traditional theories provide no answer to such disasters that could create vast movements of refugees and external and internal pressures on the surrounding zone. Vast migrations of people due to a natural disaster surely threaten the stability and security of the inflow state. Humanitarian disasters can quickly spill out of control with knock on effects in the region which provides a damaging effect like a ripple to global security. For Example Hurricane Katrina in the United States led to widespread looting and a breakdown in local security. Governance in New Orleans essentially broke down destabilising the area. On a larger scale an out of control United States would have a profound effect on the world system. Such ideas are extremely popular with the concern for the environment at the forefront of many individuals minds.
Humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian intervention has the potential to become an important tool of human security policy. It is critical however that focus is placed upon prevention and the underlying roots of conflict rather than intervention at a later stage. Human security focuses on a multi layered approach to intervention and aims to solve the problems inherent in Humanitarian crisis. This ultimately offers a better long term solution to the invasion of another state with the aim of ending conflict. The responsibility to protect is an important aspect of such an intervention. This concept is an important step forward for human security and relates to a states role in protecting its citizens, if it fails then the onus shifts towards the international community. Supporters of responsibility to protect aim to develop norms and a legal basis for humanitarian intervention in a target state. The responsibility to protect is seen as a major triumph in the development of the theory as it highlights the usefulness of the human security approach, particularly its abilities to solve the core of the problems and justify humanitarian intervention.
Human Security and Girl Soldiers
Human security is a theory that can be applied to help different suffering groups in society. The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict is an important step for human security in dealing with the issues of child soldiers. In particular the work of Mary-Jane Fox (2004) has examined to what extent girl soldiers fall within the ambit of human security thinking. The core of human security is viewed as the vulnerability of individuals and thus the theory aims to protect those who are at the most vulnerable. Surely then child soldiers and girls in particular who are at great risk qualify as strong contenders for human security action. Once identified these vulnerable groups can be protected via a strategic implementation of human security policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion it should be stated that human security is an important and useful concept that suffers because of its broad sweep and definitional elasticity. Actors who aim to employ human security need to decide what they feel constitutes a security threat to the individual and act upon it. The constant debate around human security however is important for the development of the theory and its strategic use in the future. Analytical databases like those provided by the Human (in) security index will allow actors to identify and act in a preventative manner on threats affecting an individuals/global security. Further development will enable applicability and use on the strategic level. Thus the concept of human security is indeed useful and vital to understanding the security threats of the future.
Bibliography
Alkire, Sabina (2002) ‘Conceptual framework for the commission on human Security’ www.humansecurity-chs.org/doc/frame.html
Fox, Mary Jane 2004. Girl soldiers: Human Security and Gendered Insecurity. Security Dialogue. Sage Publications. Oslo.
Keizo Obuchi, Prime ministerial address “In Quest of Human Security” Japan institute for international affairs 40th anniversary symposium, united nations university, Tokyo 11 December 1999.
King, Gary and Christopher J. L Murray, Rethinking Human security, Political science Quarterly Volume 116 Number 4 2001-02
Lloyd Anxworthy ‘an address on human security’ minister of foreign affairs, to the G8 foreign ministers’ Metting 9 june 1999)
Lyon, Alynna J. & Chris J. Dolan. 2007. ‘American Humanitarian Intervention: Toward a Theory of Coevolution.’ Foreign Policy Analysis 3(1).
Mcnamara, Robert S. The essence of security:Reflecttions in office. New York:Harper and Row, 1968
United Nations Development Programme. The Human Development Report 1994, (New York: Oxford, 1994).
UN Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now. United Nations: New York. #
Werthes, Sascha, Heaven, Corinne and Vollnhals, Sven, Development, Security and the Contested Usefulness of Human Security: A Human (In-)Security Index (2009). APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1449319
(Special dispensation was granted to quote from this text as the document is still in a draft form. Thus it may not be quoted unless permission is obtained from the authors)
Websites
* http://ochaonline.un.org/Home/tabid/2097/language/en-US/Default.aspx
* http://www.hsrgroup.org/
* http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/
Introduction
The debate around human security is an ongoing one. Important conceptual problems have yet to be addressed and resolved. The theory is yet to be concretely defined and thus much debate surrounds the definition and broadness of the idea. This may indeed be the strength of the theorem, it knows no boundaries and thus merits constant debate. A fresh and exciting take on international relations is welcome and I would put forward that the theory is definitely ‘useful’.
In arguing that human security is a useful concept I first seek to introduce and define the theory in its latest version. . Secondly I examine a current project (2009 and yet to be published) undertaken by the Human Security Research Project who have attempted to develop the Human (In-)Security Index (www.humansecurity.de) This Index shows that the concept of human security is useful and applicable to contemporary international relations theory. Finally I briefly explore the concept of human security in light of the environment, humanitarian intervention and child (girl) soldiers.
Overview
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report lays the foundation for human security as an international relations discipline. Human security emerged from this report as a paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities and challenging the Realist and Liberal schools of international relations theory. National, regional and global stability is argued to be dependent on the individual. In essence the theory is implicitly people centred and builds upon post-cold war ideas for development, international relations, strategic studies and human rights. The 1994 report is considered the land mark publication for the advancement of human security as a theory in security studies. The sheer scope of the concept and its various definitions has led to much criticism. These critics point towards the vagueness of the theory and argue that it is ineffective on the international stage.
The UNDP report of 1994 points towards four essential characteristics in the concept of human security. Firstly it is argued that the concept must apply universally and concern the entire world. Second the components that make up the theory are based on interdependence. Thirdly Human security is more easily obtained through early prevention than later intervention. Such an idea is very popular in contemporary conflict resolution with both the UN and EU focusing on preventative operations. Finally the primary concern of security should be the individual, the theory is people centred. (UNDP 1994 :22-23) It is important that Human security is differentiated from the broader concept of human development. The latter is based on trying to widen the range of peoples choices, the former aims to allow these choice to be exercised freely and without menace. Much debate abounds around the realms of each discipline. These can be divided into the broad and narrow schools on human security.
Definitions-Broad vs. Narrow
The Report of the Commission on Human Security (2003) defines the concept as a
‘means for protecting fundamental freedoms…. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strength and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military. And cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival’ (UN, 2003)
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are safe from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. An increase in globalisation and interdependence led to concerns that actions in one place may have effects internationally. Such issues as unresolved development have been seen in Somalia, East Timor and Haiti. This common theme of under development has become interrelated with an increasingly globalized international system. These linkages, although considered vague by some academics create the basis of human security theory.
‘In the final analysis human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons, it is a concern with human life and dignity’
(UNDP 1994:22)
The broad definition offered by the UNDP report encompasses a large area including economic, food, health, environmental, political, personal and community security. This scope makes it difficult for actors to efficiently target areas for human security to be applied. However each area warrants a close examination into whether they effect the individual and thus the international security system as a whole. If something is a threat to security it cannot be ignored merely because it is outside the remit of traditional security practice. Counter to this broad scope would be that of Sabine Alkire (2002) who provides a more focused and narrow view on human security. Focusing essentially on the fundamental aspects Alkire states ‘the objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, and to do so without impeding long term human flourishing’ (2002) Here the critical threat is what should be assessed. Providing a more focused definition allows human security to become more effective as a security tool. Such a broad scale of security concern merits problems in applicability and conceptualisation of the theory.
Supporters suggest that the concept of security has been on states reacting to external aggressors or acting on protecting national interest. They argue that the new referent of security theory should be the individual. The concept of human security highlights the issue of States vs. Individuals as the referents of international order. Traditional international relations theory would suggest that the main actor of a secure world is the nation state. Indeed the focus since the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 has been the sovereign right of the state to decide its internal matters. External threats were treated as security issues and the main threat to the world order. Human security attempts to bypass the nation state and deal directly with the individual and their personal struggles. The safety of the individual is key to global security, a threat to an individual is a threat to international security.
It should be established that human security is a more focused discipline than human development. Modern states can focus human security on dealing with threats to life and physical violence through prevention, protection and empowerment of individuals (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p. 13). Human development and broader issues can be brought in so ‘a conceptual framework leads to a mutually enforcing human security policy which emphasises crisis prevention and crisis management policies at the same time’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.14) Successful management of the broad (development) and the narrow (political violence) schools requires politics that address both their needs. Both the narrow and the broads definitions should be taken into account as the ambition of human security is its shining light, while the narrow school provides a operational framework for immediate implementation. The theory as a whole needs to be developed further but no doubt it is a useful and applicable concept that in the future will gain much momentum.
The Use of Human Security
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are protected from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. The 1994 report from the UNDP focuses on economic, food ,health, environment, personal, community and political security as important areas applicable to the larger communal global security. Human security seeks to protect the individual and empower them to consolidate their personal and national security. The concept explains the basic need for the individual and provides for state security at the same time. They become linked in a symbiotic relationship. In this manner the arguments between the broad and narrow schools can be resolved and the concept applied usefully to strategic operations.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, armed conflicts have occurred mainly within states. War between states has become rare in the current political climate. This position has put human security at the forefront of international politics. Essentially their has been a shift from external threats towards internal struggles that realism and liberalism are unable to deal with. Human security is able to provide a useful analysis and provide solutions for such internal strife. King and Murray highlight that ‘human security has rapidly moved to occupy centre stage in discussions of foreign policy’(King and Murray 2002) This view was backed up in June of 1999 when the G8 declared that they are ‘determined to fight the underlying causes of multiple threats to human security’ (Anxworthy 9 June 1999) Far from being a useless theorem, human security is at the forefront of policy makers at the highest level. The changing nature of security towards a focus on preventative diplomacy and internal pressures makes the individual an important focus. It can be argued that this has always been the case. Individuals have influenced international security far before the UNDP report in 1994. Throughout history events effecting individuals have affected international security. The murder of Caesar in 44BC for example threw the Roman republic into a civil war that resulted in the emergence of an Empire. Such examples abound through history. The persecution of peoples by governments has led to revolutions that have significantly altered the world order. Thus the individual is a worthy referent of security.
With the ability to act collectively states can prevent civil war and genocide in war torn or rogue states. It has begun to be recognised that even territorial security does not guarantee the security of citizens within a state. Examples such as North Korea and Rwanda comply with such a statement (King, p. 388). Canada, Norway and Japan have all implanted human security in their international diplomacy. Canada’s policy albeit less broad than the UNDP definition aims to provide safety for people from both violent and non-violent threats. Their aim is to push towards a system where human security and national security are mutually supportive. Japan have also pioneered a ‘foreign policy with human security playing a central role’ (Obuchi, Keizo 1999) . Human security attempts to address and deal with the underlying causes and implications of a conflict. Traditional security practice is often accused of an intense reaction without any real attempt to resolve the conflict. The basic goal of preventative efforts is to reduce and eliminate the need for intervention all together. While still in its infancy analytically it cannot be denied that the theory of human security is strategically useful.
Human (In) security Project- Human Security in action
Their are however attempts being made to provide analytical data for use in a human security context. The Working Group on Human Security state ‘Our attempt is to operationalize the consensual core of human security while nevertheless sticking closely to UNDP ideas, in other words to measure human insecurity’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009) The aim of the Working Group on Human Security (www.humansecurity.de) is to conceptualise a human (in)security index measuring levels of human security and insecurity. This is measured on 4 Levels, two consisting of levels of human security and two on levels of human insecurity.
0-25 Level One : Human Security
There is no threat to life/survival
25-50 Level Two: Human Security
Some factors affect life/survival but strategies are in place to deal with such threats
50-75 Level Three: Human Insecurity
Some factors affect life/survival and only limited resources and strategies are available to counter these threats
75-100 Level Four: Human Insecurity
Factors affect life/.survival and their are no strategies or means to deal with these threats.
The scale ranges from 1-100 with a rating of 76 or more representing the 4th Level or dangerous human insecurity. Ratings from 0-25 or Level 1 represent a relative level of human security with 25-50 an increase in threat to life at Level 2. A rating of 50-75 tips the scale into Level 3 which is human insecurity. It is argued that their has been no attempt to measure human insecurity taking into account non-violent threats. Thus the group aims to stay close to the original broad definition outlined by the UNDP in 1994.
‘Whilst the narrow understanding of human security concentrates on the protection against physical violence, the broader approach to human security also includes those threats to the well being of humans that are not directly linked to physical violence, that is, life threatening distress (freedom from want) ( Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.17 )
To achieve this measurement the index has operationalized human security through seven dimensions outlined in the UNDP report. These include economic, food, health, environmental, political and personal and community security. The development of such an index allows identification of the threats in a particular country. Such analytical data can be acted on preventing a deterioration to worse levels of human insecurity. Such work will allow human security to become useful and led to analytical refinement allowing improved strategic actions (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.18). Identifying one of the six categories allows actors to deal with the root of the problem. For example a high (dangerous) rating in food (in) security will pinpoint famine. Vulnerabilities can be assessed and responded to. Each of the six categories is based on two variables, for example environmental issues are measured on population affected by disasters and access to water and sanitation. Health is measured on the child mortality rate and population affected by pandemics. Following the calculations Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan , Congo (DRC), Burundi and Ethiopia scored worst in the index. The index showed that only 2 of the top 15 worst performing countries were outside Africa. This highlights the danger of humanitarian/political disaster in the region. The top performers consist mainly of Western Europe with the Scandinavian countries in particular good performers. The top rated country overall was Norway. Other projects such as the miniAtlas funded by the World Bank have also provided analytical data for use in a human security role, albeit on a more narrow scale.
The idea of human security has gained importance in the political realm. It has been included into decision making, policy design and programmatic implementation (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.53) Examples of successful implementation are the Ottawa process on landmines and Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict adopted by the United Nations. Measurements of human (in) security have been lacking and such analytical data is vital to the growth and development of the theory. To conclude ‘the creation of a Human (In) Security index contributes to a refinement of the notion of human security’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009. p.54) and proves the concept can be measured and the information applied in a ‘useful’ manner.
Environmental
Security must also come to terms with the fact that there are non-military threats to contend with along side the traditional military confrontation. Robert Mcnamara introduced the idea that environmental and natural disasters can constitute threats to security (1968). Traditional theories provide no answer to such disasters that could create vast movements of refugees and external and internal pressures on the surrounding zone. Vast migrations of people due to a natural disaster surely threaten the stability and security of the inflow state. Humanitarian disasters can quickly spill out of control with knock on effects in the region which provides a damaging effect like a ripple to global security. For Example Hurricane Katrina in the United States led to widespread looting and a breakdown in local security. Governance in New Orleans essentially broke down destabilising the area. On a larger scale an out of control United States would have a profound effect on the world system. Such ideas are extremely popular with the concern for the environment at the forefront of many individuals minds.
Humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian intervention has the potential to become an important tool of human security policy. It is critical however that focus is placed upon prevention and the underlying roots of conflict rather than intervention at a later stage. Human security focuses on a multi layered approach to intervention and aims to solve the problems inherent in Humanitarian crisis. This ultimately offers a better long term solution to the invasion of another state with the aim of ending conflict. The responsibility to protect is an important aspect of such an intervention. This concept is an important step forward for human security and relates to a states role in protecting its citizens, if it fails then the onus shifts towards the international community. Supporters of responsibility to protect aim to develop norms and a legal basis for humanitarian intervention in a target state. The responsibility to protect is seen as a major triumph in the development of the theory as it highlights the usefulness of the human security approach, particularly its abilities to solve the core of the problems and justify humanitarian intervention.
Human Security and Girl Soldiers
Human security is a theory that can be applied to help different suffering groups in society. The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict is an important step for human security in dealing with the issues of child soldiers. In particular the work of Mary-Jane Fox (2004) has examined to what extent girl soldiers fall within the ambit of human security thinking. The core of human security is viewed as the vulnerability of individuals and thus the theory aims to protect those who are at the most vulnerable. Surely then child soldiers and girls in particular who are at great risk qualify as strong contenders for human security action. Once identified these vulnerable groups can be protected via a strategic implementation of human security policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion it should be stated that human security is an important and useful concept that suffers because of its broad sweep and definitional elasticity. Actors who aim to employ human security need to decide what they feel constitutes a security threat to the individual and act upon it. The constant debate around human security however is important for the development of the theory and its strategic use in the future. Analytical databases like those provided by the Human (in) security index will allow actors to identify and act in a preventative manner on threats affecting an individuals/global security. Further development will enable applicability and use on the strategic level. Thus the concept of human security is indeed useful and vital to understanding the security threats of the future.
Bibliography
Alkire, Sabina (2002) ‘Conceptual framework for the commission on human Security’ www.humansecurity-chs.org/doc/frame.html
Fox, Mary Jane 2004. Girl soldiers: Human Security and Gendered Insecurity. Security Dialogue. Sage Publications. Oslo.
Keizo Obuchi, Prime ministerial address “In Quest of Human Security” Japan institute for international affairs 40th anniversary symposium, united nations university, Tokyo 11 December 1999.
King, Gary and Christopher J. L Murray, Rethinking Human security, Political science Quarterly Volume 116 Number 4 2001-02
Lloyd Anxworthy ‘an address on human security’ minister of foreign affairs, to the G8 foreign ministers’ Metting 9 june 1999)
Lyon, Alynna J. & Chris J. Dolan. 2007. ‘American Humanitarian Intervention: Toward a Theory of Coevolution.’ Foreign Policy Analysis 3(1).
Mcnamara, Robert S. The essence of security:Reflecttions in office. New York:Harper and Row, 1968
United Nations Development Programme. The Human Development Report 1994, (New York: Oxford, 1994).
UN Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now. United Nations: New York. #
Werthes, Sascha, Heaven, Corinne and Vollnhals, Sven, Development, Security and the Contested Usefulness of Human Security: A Human (In-)Security Index (2009). APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1449319
(Special dispensation was granted to quote from this text as the document is still in a draft form. Thus it may not be quoted unless permission is obtained from the authors)
Websites
* http://ochaonline.un.org/Home/tabid/2097/language/en-US/Default.aspx
* http://www.hsrgroup.org/
* http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/
