HUMAN SECURITY: THE ‘APOCRYPHAL ELEPHANT’

HUMAN SECURITY: THE ‘APOCRYPHAL ELEPHANT’

Human security is a long line of neologisms in security studies (Paris, 2001). The concept of Human Security is a relatively new branch of security studies, and it has been shaped by both the Copenhagen School and the Aberystwyth School (Williams & McDonald, 2018). As opposed to the traditional state-centric approach to security, these two schools shifted the referent object to individuals, or humans, thus placing people at the center of security issues.

The idea of human security is expansive and difficult to pin down precisely, which has led some critics to doubt its usefulness for policymakers (Ewan, 2007). Furthermore, since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, ‘development and military security’ have ‘become intertwined’, making the situation even more complex (King & Murray, 2001). By understanding the nuances of human security, we can create a clearer framework for tackling security risks.

"Development must be focused on people rather than the security of their national boundaries, advancing health, education, political freedom, and economic well-being." — UNDP, 1994

The United Nations Development Program fostered the term "human security," to mean both "freedom from fear and want" (King & Murray, 2001). It was the first crucial document that argued to broaden the concept of human security to ‘an all-encompassing concept’ in the 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP, 1994). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) argued that development must be focused on people rather than the security of their national boundaries, advancing health, education, political freedom, and economic well-being (King & Murray, 2001).

The UNDP report defined the concept of human security via two key components: ‘safety’ and ‘protection’. Where safety meant safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression. And protection meant protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions. The document argued for a "people-centric" concept of security against the dichotomy of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear". The main four characteristics of human security are universality, people-centeredness, interdependency, and early prevention and the seven interconnected elements of security are: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political.

This definition was so elaborate that if we speculate on its application, it hardly leaves any aspect of human life out of its ambit. There was a de facto agreement in international politics and academia to shape the meaning of this ‘neologism’ to focus on the plights of humans, individuals, or communities beyond the state, generating wide-ranging and varied interpretations of the concept.

Ronald Paris has argued that a secure society must provide its citizens with safety from both chronic threats and unanticipated disruptions (Paris, 2001). Economist Amitav Acharya reflected this idea in his 2001 op-ed, "Human Security: East versus West," emphasizing the importance of looking at security from an individual perspective, taking into account both material and non-material components that contribute to overall human wellbeing (Acharya, 2001). Archarya further argues that ensuring human security requires both ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’.

There has also been a ‘quixotic quest’ to narrow down the neologism of human security by focusing on essential elements (Paris, 2001). Gary King and Christopher Murray have been central to this discussion...

Security Studies: An Introduction • Section 1.2

Popular posts from this blog

DOES HUMAN SECURITY BRING ANYTHING NEW TO REFUEE PROTECTION?

Does Human Security (HS) Bring Anything New to Refugee Protection? A salient question in the search for meaning for physical security that has reoriented or at least given preponderance to HS since the Cold War was “Whose security?”. This is a question that has been asked repeatedly in security discourse. However, the previous realist assertion was no longer viable in the century to come. The reorientation of security was in some sense necessary at that time, at least to rub along with the democratic consensus to cut down funding for physical security. A shift in orientation from state to individual or community, at least in normative advocacy, seemed to make up for the vacuum (Paris, 2001). Although in reality all this normative advocacy made little sense in policy application, David Chandler opinioned that human security as a concept did not ‘bark’ (Chandler, 2008). However, it is my assertion that independent research into HS continued ...
Read more

Who are the Rohingya? Contested claims of their origin.

Image
WHO ARE THE ROHINGYA? Figure : Map of Rakhine (former Arakan) state of Myanmar (Source : Map of Rakhine State-Wikipedia) The question is simple, but answering it is complex. The Rohingya are an ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority group from the northern Rakhine state (Harvard Divinity School, 2021). They are distinct from the major Burman group and share cultural traits that are more similar to those of South Asia (Matisoff, 2023). The Rohingya are predominantly Muslims who claim to be the descendants of Indo-Aryans but assert their indigeneity to western Myanmar, having lived there since precolonial times (Blakemore, 2019). However, their origin and identity are highly debated among scholars. C. R. Abrar citing Nicolaus (1995) argues that the influx of Muslim traders from Afghanis...
Read more

THE ASIAN LABORATORY OF HUMAN SECURITY AND REFUGEES

THE ASIAN LABORATORY OF HUMAN SECURITY AND REFUGEES The 21st century has the potential to be recognized as the era dominated by Asian influence and achievements, especially in terms of Human Security (HS) (Kim, 2010). HS has an Asian origin, as evidenced by the prominent role of Japan in advancing a HS agenda of ‘freedom from want’ that transcends the state-centric approach and prioritizes the well-being of individuals (Acharya, 2001). In addition, influential scholars such as Mahbubul Haq and Amartya Sen, have Asian roots, and along with many other Asian academics who have contributed to shaping a distinctive Asian perspective on HS. The Asian view of HS differs from the allegedly narrow Westphalian view that focuses on the physical securitization of states. This view puts a premium on the principles of sovereignty and noninterference. However, as Kim stresses, these principles are not new or uniquely Asian (Ki...
Read more