Lecture slides (long version)Prepared by

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, shahrbanou@yahoo.com

and Aziz Rakhimov,

a_rakhimov@hotmail.com UNDP Consultants

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

What we will cover1) The concept of Human Security

Definitions Critiques In the political world

2) Differences with other frameworks and theories Vis-à-vis traditional security Vis-à-vis Human Development

3) Measurements4) Policy principles5) Using the Human Security Framework for diagnosis

and policy development

1) What is Human Security?

What does the word security bring to mind?The concepts of “security” and “insecurity”

have relative connotations in different contexts. For some, insecurity comes from the sudden loss

of guarantee of access to jobs, health care, social welfare, education, etc. For others insecurity stems from violation of human rights, extremism, domestic violence, spread of conflicts, displacement, etc.

To be meaningful, security needs to be recognized as a subjective experience at the micro level in terms of people’s daily experience.

Peace is more than just negative peace (the absence of violence)

We must also broaden our view of what is meant by peace and security. Peace means much more than the absence of war. Human security can no longer be understood in purely military terms. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

Kofi Annan. 2001. “Towards a Culture of Peace.”

Human Security in international politics was first coined by Mahbub Ul Haq and his team, in the 1994 Human Development Report

Mahbub Ul HaqIn the final analysis, human security is a

child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, and ethnic tension that did not explode into 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 Human Development Report, 1994

The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report described Human Security as Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear

It also identified seven of its components as economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.

The 7 components of the UNDP 1994 approach to HSType of Security Examples of Main Threats

Economic Security Persistent poverty, unemployment

Food security Hunger, famine, etc

Health security Infectious diseases, malnutrition, etc

Environmental security

Resource depletion, natural disasters, pollution, etc

Personal security Physical violence, crime, domestic violence, child labour

Community security

Inter-ethnic, religious and other identity based tensions, discrimination

Political Security Political repression, human rights abuses

So what is Human Security?Instead of focusing on the security of states,

the concept of Human Security poses as the center of focus the well being of individuals and communities.

Threats can be to their survival ( physical abuse, violence, persecution, or death), to their livelihoods (unemployment, food insecurity, health threats, etc), and to their dignity (lack of human rights, inequality, exclusion, discrimination, etc. ).

Human Security in a nutshell…Freedom from want, freedom from fear and a

freedom to live in dignity

Focus on three goals of policy: Protection, Provision and Empowerment

Insists on the relationship between development, security and human rights

Security

Human security component: Freedom from fearWhat people want: survivalWhat policies should focus on: protection

Human Rights

Human security component: Life of dignityWhat people want: dignityWhat policies should focus on: empowerment

Human Development

Human security component: Freedom from wantWhat people want: livelihoodsWhat policies should focus on: provision

Three schools of thought on definitions

1) A first group (mostly those adhering to realism and neorealism) reject human security for duplicating existing frameworks and including too many things in the security paradigm.

2) A second group, the minimalists, who want to limit it to a narrow definition focusing on “freedom from fear” and factors that perpetuate violence; (Canadians, the EU)

3) A third group who adhere to a maximalist definition based on “freedom from want”, “freedom from fear” and life of dignity (UNDP, Commission on Human Security, Japanese government). For proponents of the maximalist definition, a broad definition is critical to encourage comprehensive measures which can be applied to issues that affect the everyday lives of people. These concerns may be subjective, but it is nonetheless the subjective sense of the security of individuals that in the last analysis is of paramount importance.

And Various Critiques

critiquesConceptual critiques: These argue that the broad

definition of human security is too vague and that it securitizes too many issues. They also point out that HS duplicates existing frameworks.

Analytical critiques argue that Human Security is not a theory that can help explain behaviour although it may explain the nature of different threats.

The political implications of a human security agenda is also criticized on the grounds that it challenges the traditional role of the sovereign state as the sole provider of security, as well as the very sovereignty of the State in the international context.

Moral implication. Southern countries worry about industrialized countries, notably Western-based, imposing their own social and economic values upon the weak. For critics from the so-called North, the moral dilemma exists when it fails to distinguish between individual and universal security concerns.

Implementation critiques Those interested in operationalizing human security point to a number of implementation difficulties in creating a bridge between rhetoric and policy. To these critics, the complexity and subjectivity makes prioritization difficult, measurements of success are unclear and human security represents a short-term response to threats without providing long-term solutions.

Human Security in the Policy world

HS in international Relations1) 1994-1996: The skeptical years2) 1996-2001: Capture by middle

power states3) 2001- 2003: Global

Commissions seize the concept in its different

4) 2004-2008: Regional and global endorsement for a collective response to new threats

2) Differences with other frameworks and theories

Different from the National Security Approach HS does not intend to displace the notion of

state security. Instead, their relationship is best viewed as

complementary: human security and state security are mutually reinforcing and dependent on each other. Without human security, state security cannot be attained and vice versa.

Relationship between Human Security and National Security

The shift from state-based to individual-based

security introduces three new questions

Security of Whom?/What?

Security from What?

Security by what means?

Security of Whom?/What? That of people in

addition to the states. Why? States can be incapable or unwilling to trickle

down security Because no state is safe until everyone is safe

Security from What? From menaces beyond violence to a host of other threats.

Threats can be both direct and indirect Intentional or un-intentional Traditional violence or structural violence Objective or subjective

Security by what means? By securing people and making sure that their survival, livelihood and empowerment needs are met through adequate security measures, development and human rights policies.

State Security Human Security

Whose Security

The state Individuals and communities within the state as well as the state

Security from which treats?

From external, military attacks directed against the state

•From economic, environmental, food, health, community and political security threats. •From direct and indirect threats, from subjective and objective fears

Security how?

Through defence, investment in military means, etc. Through state sovereignty

•Through empowerment and protection of people •Through policies meant for ensuring survival (traditional security measures), livelihoods (development) and dignity (human rights)

Different from the Human Development approach

SimilaritiesThey both shift the focus away from

instrumental objectives (economic growth and national security) to the role and conditions of human beings as objects and subjects of policies

They are both concerned with peoples’ dignity as well as their material and physical concerns

But differences too …

Human Development Human Security

Ensuring that people are subjects and objects of development policies

Making sure that what they gain today is not lost tomorrow

Ensuring freedom TO be and do what people want to do and be

Ensuring freedom FROM fear, wants and indignities

Progressive and aggregate: “Together we rise”

Looks at who was left behind at the individual level: “Divided we fall”

Ensuring that economic growth is accompanied with equitable distribution (growth with equity)

Ensuring that development policies are accompanied by safety nets so that when crisis hit, people do not suffer as much (downturns with security).

3) Measuring Human Security

Human Security Index?

Unlike the Human Development Index, an aggregate of Human Security Index has not been identified yet

This challenge is related to four inter-related areas: 1. The lack of consensus on one definition. 2. The difficulty to gather reliable data on death,

injury and violence 3. The need for qualitative indicators that bring out

perceptions of insecurity or risk because Human Security is context specific

4. The difficulty to come up with absolute thresholds because they would fail to recognize the universality of the concept and its application both to people in industrialized societies as well as to those of living in developing counties.

Other ways of measuring Human Insecurity

Quantitative indicators For instance, some of them measuring:Economic Security (such as for example, GDP per capita,

poverty rates, unemployment, income inequality, etc.)Food security ( for example malnutrition, purchasing power,

increase in food prices, etc)Health security (for example Life expectancy, mortality,

morbidity) Environmental security (for example Soil degradation, Safe

water, availability of arable land etc) Personal security (for example homicides, crime, conflicts,

violence etc. )Community/Political security (discrimination, religious

freedom index, participation in elections, number of media, transparency, etc )

Qualitative indicators

The perceptions of people in terms of how they identify and assess risks and threats in their lives

Can be done through perception studies, in-depth interviews, opinion polls, etc Pro: These measure the real threats as

perceived by those threatened directly Con:

Difficulty to aggregate the qualitative perceptions Difficulty to tally up with quantitative measures

4) Implications of using the Human Security Framework for Policy and Programming

What are the implications for policy and programming?Human Security requires policies that protect, empower and provide personal safety, well-being and individual freedom. These policies should be based around the following principles:

People-centeredInter-connectedComprehensiveContext specificPreventive

People-centered. Human Security places the individual at the ‘centre of analysis’ and recognizes their roles as both actors (agents) and subjects (beneficiaries) of policies, programmes and projects. This recognition means that policies should be designed and implemented in ways that empower people.

Local Participation (individual and community) is therefore needed through all phases of policy making or programming:

Needs assessmentDesignImplementationImpact assessmentMonitoring and evaluation

Inter-connected. Human security recognizes the connections between threats as being mutually reinforcing and inter-interlinked in a domino effect. For example, economic insecurity in terms of job losses lead to poverty, which in turn could lead to disease, education deficits, migration etc. Micro credit programmes may be good for economic security, but if they could lead to conflicts between communities that participate and those that do not have enough resources. By the same token, education programs not only improve economic conditions, but they also contribute to health outcomes for people, more participation in the political life etc.

Therefore, policies should be multi-sectoral and make sure that interventions in one domain have multiple positive outcomes in other domains or do not do unintended harms through negative externalities.

Comprehensive Because threats are inter-connected, human insecurities cannot be tackled in isolation via fragmented stand-alone responses. Instead, the Human Security policies should address holistic approaches and integrated strategies that touch on different aspects of development, security and human security at the same time.

Context specific: Although the human security framework is universal, in that it is relevant to people everywhere, insecurities vary considerably across different settings. Therefore, adequate policies should advance contextualized solutions that are responsive to the particular situations they seek to address. This requires policy makers and practitioners to have in-depth knowledge of the situation at hand and to conduct baselines studies and perception studies to know what communities perceive as their own insecurities.

Preventive: Ultimately, the most effective, but difficult, policies are those that develop and integrate preventive measures, both to avoid conflicts, and to prepare for downturns.

Which levels are responsible?

Human security can be characterized as a public good. As such, it evokes responsibilities by the states and international community to ensure the survival, livelihood and dignity by protecting, providing and empowering people and communities. At the same time, it also calls for a corresponding duty of engagement by the people. Communities and individuals should also be in a position to demand their rights, and be empowered enough to seek solutions for themselves.

The responsibility of levels of governance to provide human security as public good, and to protect and empower individuals is at different levels.

Local level. Grassroots empowerment is key to the concept of human security. Citizens are often embedded in formal and informal local networks that may help to prevent threats, while local level governance structures play a particularly important role given their proximity to the citizens and the local problems facing them.

•National level The social contract presupposes that the state is responsible for the protection of its citizens, and for provision of public goods. Even if this is not always the case, the state is still the most prominent political actor and the principle body responsible and resourced enough to organize empowerment, provision and social protection.

Regional level. Regional and other intergovernmental organizationscan play an important role in determining common human insecurities and ways of tackling them through regional cooperation and coordination. A large number of such organisations, such as European Union (EU), the African Union (AU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Arab League have strengthened their mandate in peace and security and adopted regional development plans, which together can tackle common human insecurities through regional approaches.

Global level. Many of today’s threats are derived from global challenges (such as climate change, trans-national terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, pandemics, financial crises, energy and food price rises, unfair and unpredictable global trade practices, etc). At the global level, the international community should not only have a mandate but also the responsibility to protect all human beings through the provision of essential global public goods such as a reliable international economic and financial order, sustainable development frameworks, international peace, climate stability, sufficient food availability to all, human rights enhancement and protection systems and more.

5) Exercises

  Impact on the Nation-State and its institutions(National Security)

Impact on People (Human Security)

Example of Economic insecurity: Global financial crisis

  Impact on the Nation-State and its institutions(National Security)

Impact on People (Human Security)

Example of health insecurity; HIV/AIDs

  Impact on the Nation-State and its institutions(National Security)

Impact on People (Human Security)

Example of environmental Insecurity: Water crisis

  Impact on the Nation-State and its institutions(National Security)

Impact on People (Human Security)

Example of environmental Insecurity: Water crisis

  Impact on the Nation-State and regional security

Impact on People (Human Security)

Drugs

Contribute articles to the Student-run, peer-reviewed academic online journal The Human

Security Journal found at http://www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/journal/index.h

tm