Human
security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose
proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing
that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the
state. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is
necessary for national, regional and global stability. The concept emerged from
a post-Cold War, multi-disciplinary understanding of security involving a
number of research fields, including development studies, international
relations, strategic studies, and human rights. The United Nations Development
Programmer’s 1994 Human Development Report is considered a milestone
publication in the field of human security, with its argument that insuring
"freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" for all persons
is the best path to tackle the problem of global insecurity. Frequently
referred to in a wide variety of global policy discussions and scholarly
journals,
Critics
of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness;[4] that
it has become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote
certain causes; and that it does not help the research community understand
what security means or help decision makers to formulate good policies.
Human
security focuses on the protection of individuals, rather than defending the
physical and political integrity of states from external military threats - the
traditional goal of national security. Ideally, national security and human
security should be mutually reinforcing, but in the last 100 years far more
people have died as a direct or indirect consequence of the actions of their
own governments or rebel forces in civil wars than have been killed by invading
foreign armies. Acting in the name of national security, governments can pose
profound threats to human security. The application of human security is highly
relevant within the area of humanitarian intervention, as it focuses on
addressing the deep rooted and multi-factorial problems inherent in
humanitarian crises, and offers more long term resolutions. In general, the
term humanitarian intervention generally applies to when a state uses force
against another state in order to alleviate suffering in the latter state (See,
humanitarian intervention).
Under
the traditional security paradigm humanitarian intervention is contentious. As
discussed above, the traditional security paradigm places emphasis on the
notion of states. Hence, the principles of state sovereignty and
non-intervention that are paramount in the traditional security paradigm make
it difficult to justify the intervention of other states in internal disputes.
Through the development of clear principles based on the human security
concept, there has been a step forward in the development of clear rules of
when humanitarian intervention can occur and the obligations of states that
intervene in the internal disputes of a state.
These
principles on humanitarian intervention are the product of a debate pushed by
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. He posed a challenge to the
international community to find a new approach to humanitarian intervention
that responded to its inherent problems.[29] In 2001, the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) produced the "The
Responsibility to protect", a comprehensive report detailing how the
“right of humanitarian intervention” could be exercised. It was considered a
triumph for the human security approach as it emphasized and gathered much
needed attention to some of its main principles
No comments:
Post a Comment