DOES HUMAN SECURITY BRING ANYTHING NEW TO REFUEE 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 to spark interest among academia and enthusiasts, but practical effort has been on the decline. The COVID-19 generated new interest among academia, even the UNDP published a report on HS after a decade, steering itself substantially in a different direction from the former Human Security Project (UNDP & HDRO, 2021).
1. Different Imperatives: HS has different imperatives—broad, narrow militaristic, and developmental—stretching it from reality to have any analytical coherence.
2. Market Liberalism: The freedom from want approach is often shortened to a palliative measure that works within the philosophy of market liberalism.
3. Short-termism: International legalism provides short-term resolution, while HS brings normative calls for change but does little for long-term solutions.
4. Limited Development: HS often takes a limited developmental route that compromises other approaches (e.g., Japan's narrowly focused development assistance).
5. Historical Regression: Events like September 11 gave rise to a very state-centered view, regressing progress away from justice.
6. Lack of Boundaries: The definition of HS is omnivorous and lacks rigid conceptual boundaries.
7. Non-binding Nature: The lack of legal guarantees can allow HS to be used as an "eyewash" for ineffective policy.
8. Securitization Risks: Unnecessary securitization can backfire, inducing fear-driven responses and "xenophobic othering" of refugees.
For human security to be meaningful in every sphere including refugee protection, it must focus on what L. Axworthy (2018) identifies as:
Security of individuals, not just nation;
Security through development, not through arms;
Security of all people everywhere, in their homes, in their jobs, in their communities, and in their environment."
Chandler, D. (2008). Review Essay: Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark. Security Dialogue, 39(4), 427–438.
Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), 87–102.
UNDP & HDRO. (2021). Special Report on Human Security 2022. United Nations Development Programme.
