INTRODUCTION

Mary Martín and Taylor Owen

lt is two decades since the United Nations Development Programme included the phrase
'human securiry' in its 1 YY4 Human Development Reporr, triggering a long and sometimes .
fractious debate abour this 'new' vision of security, which sought to challenge classic formula-
tions based on state sovereignry, the defence of territory and elite decision-making. More than
perhaps any other formubti¿n, which soughr to reframe securiry alter the end of the Cold War
for an age of globalisauon, human securiry provokes strong reactions. At issue are claims that it
represents a new paradigm of security, or ar least a radical way of addressing problerns associated
with conflict, crisis and severe deprivation.
Yet for 1l1anypeople, particularly those charged with making policies in these arcas, the idea
of human security is still hazy. les overarching poliey implications are unclear, and practica!
examples of its applieation are relatively few. Farfrom threarcning to overturn esrablishcd
practices, it srill comperes with traditional approaches, not least the ernbrace by powerful
western states ofthe 'War on Terror'. Because it sits in the interstices ofhuman rights, human
developrnent and securiry discourses, it sornetimes appears marginal to more mainstream
-. debates on these ropics, and implementation requires 'the erossing of poliey and diseiplinary
boundaries. As Keith Krause notes in chapter h of rhis volume, human securiry did not arise
originally from the security establishment, but fr0111 development, nor was it part of the new
vav« of securiry thinking afier the Cold War. lthas been.specifically removed from a nurnber
of key policy tracts, including the 200SCopenhagen Declaration of Social Development, and
it has been shelved by Canadas rninistry of foreign affairs, a once enthusiastic proponent of the
concept. This suggests that there is sornething diflicult and problematic about human securiry
as a label and as a policy idea ..
And yet, as countless journal articles and policy docurnenrs prove, as well as UN debates
and the creation of international academic and political insritutions ro promete hurnan securiry,
it exercises an appeal across a wide range: of polirical, geographic, instirutional and cultural
contexts. It has not evaporated, as those who dismissed ir as hot air might have expected (Paris
2001). There have been setbacks, but also many advances. The concept has become embedded
in various traces of UN discourse, lt grounded nurnerous internacional advocacy campaigns. It
was the core of an EU strategic review, Numerous governments continúe to use it as a policy
framework. It is widely used in the development eommuniry. And ir is used as both a framing
 Mary Martin and Taylor Owen lntroduct ion

concept for a strain of academic research sitting at rhe intersection of development and security complements rather than competes with other types of policy approach or analytical lenses is
policy, as well as a theorerical framework for critical security studies. n endeavour wh..ich has been neglected by proponents and critics alike. Although the posiuon
a . h
The airn of this volume is to take stock of what has been written and pracrised in the name of human security in relation to aIlied concepts such as human development and human ng ts
of human securiry, and capture the fíavour of the debates that it has engendered as a ropic for features regularly in scholarly and policy debates, its compatibiliry with and relevance to other
scholars and practitioners. These debates range across definirional arguments and conceptualisa- current securiry concepts receive less attention.
tions of securiry. They straddle disciplinary boundaries with different episremological traditions, So rhe chapters in this book are intended to tell a story which is both familiar and novel. As
including specific language and vocabularies, and diverse political agendas and motivarions. We Sen notes in chapter 1, human securiry is not in fact a new idea, but it has had a remarkable
have grouped these perspecrives into four parts: concepts and contexts, global policy challenges, revivll, bccoming :l 'buzz' expression, for a generarion of academics, policy-makers, pracu-
actors and applications, and lastly methodologies, tooIs and approacbes, Such delineations rioners and civil sociery policy watchdogs. This universe of constituencies has also changed ID
should not be taken as conceptuaIly or analytically rigid: we have grouped contributions in rhe past twenty years and its breadth and d!versity is also part of the story of human security.
a way which we believe is logical and at the same time allows rhe reader to see how human Human securiry is not only about the shifi of referent object away from a focus on states
security has evolved as a rounded discourse encompassing not only ideas and values, but and raisotl d'éuu, towards individuals, groups and communities. It is abo~t cosIJlopolitan ideas,
practical utility and application. There are overlaps between rhe chapters and berween parts, transnational movernents and the idea rhat a universal humaniry should frame decisions about
underlining the fact thar rhcre is a circularity to all discussions about human security. They who is vulnerable, and should be prorected. While the term 'referent object' has become a
encompass not only conceptual phenomena, but also human securiry's normative claims, as weIl useful shorthand to describe me key change in analytical approach represented by hurnan
as its instrumental artribetes, and practical aspects. As is particularly clear in the chapters in Pan security (Newman 2001: 239), it is not only objects of securiry, but the nature of subjectivity,
IV on human securiry methodology, but also in Pan II on how human security has been used as weU as the interrelation between providers and receivers of security, which have undergone
in policy and by differenr national and international acrors, the answer to {he question 'what a transformation as part of chis departure from rraditional think..ing. Human securiry reflects
is human securiry?' is to be, found not only in definitional debates, but in concrete atternpts to different assumptions about security provision at {he same time as reconftguring our perception
apply its ideas in the field, This includes considering what are appropriate tools with which to of insecurity. People cndangered by risks to health, lack of food and shelter or environmental
research human security in the social sciences. change require policy responses that no longer emanate only from traditional sources. Secunry
Knowing what hurnan security is when we see it should not be regarded as suggesting that is not the exclusive preserve of rhose rasked with protecting borders and state assets. It becornes
.only ernpirics mauer, or a refusal to continue t:ngaging in theoretical discussion. The core the concern of a broader spectrum of policy and cornpetences, and differenr k..inds of actors,
tenets of human security - re-imagining security as different frorn classical state sovereignty, including NGOs, business, religious organisations and other civil society movements. As already
expanding die horizon of potential threats, incorporaring a 'worrn's eye' of vulnerability rather noted, active co-operation is required to bring togerher different capabilities, across disciplinary
than a 'bird's eye' or top-down perspective, and empowering individuals - are starring-points on and practitioner boundaries, to fulfil a visión of holis~ic, comprehensive securiry, which can
a rich journey of ideas and experience about what makes us afraid, how we respond to those address rhe everyday needs and fears of individuals and communities.
fears and what we imagine aS' necessary to a secure life, in an era of globalisation. As Mrs Ogata observes in the foreword, a signiflcant prernise of the 2003 Cornmission on
In elaborating rhis searting-point, rhe volurne offers not only a rerrospecrive view ofhuman Human Security was that security should give individuals a voice in articulating what makes
security. Ir contains some sem..inal contributi~ns to the discourse, which stand as milestones in a , them fearful and what can be done to make them safe. Even vulnerable people - including
debate, notable for richness of analytical, polirical and philosophical thoughr. The chapters a1so 'refugecs, unorganised civilians, the poor, minority groups 3IIldvictims - should not be relegated
offer insights for the future direction of scholarship and practice - sometimes in original pieces , tO being passive recipients of someone else's decisions. They have agency; and deserve digniry
which have been updated by their authors, but also in chapters such as the one by the late, and the opportun..iry to takc charge of their own futures, Thus issues of subjectiviry and the
respected scholar Peter Liotta on how human security is relevant to addressing the challenge of interaction between the 'objecrs' of security and (hose who deal out the means and resources
urban growth in the twenty-first century, as well as chapters on arrns control and terrorism and for safer and more tolerable lives are a1so key elernents in considering what is human security
on the search for appropriate methodologies. and how it has advanced.
The benefit of revisiting original works on human security alongside new analyses is that Anorher narrative thread in rhe human securiry debate, observed by Sen, is the danger that
they remind us what we have forgonen, and left underexplored as human securiry ideas and in becoming more prolific, the idea of human security risks being surnmoned too ofien and
applications have multiplied, diverged and fragmenred. For exarnple, there is the clarity of too loosely. In the flrst part, authors trace not only the evolution of human securiry discourse,
Amartya Sen's insistence that the theoretical underpinnings of human security must contain at but also the ways in which definitional arguments have splintered it. In doing so, they highlight
¡east (itller alia): an attention Otosocial arrangements for safety, and therefore the avoidance of a not only the reasons for its popularity but also illustrate some of the discursive traps of human
socially detached view ofindividual human predicament and redemption; 'a reasoned concen- security, including how Sen's warning about overstretch might be justified. These chapters
tration on the downside risks of human lives, rather chan on the overall expansion of effective provide the broad contours of human securiry thinking, as weIl as finer details. They a1so
freedom in general' and an emphasis on the more elementary rather than the entire range of situate human securiry, historicaIly, philosophically and politicaIly within wider securiry and
human rights. policy debates. They allow us to view the consequences of a change in mindset and policy
Sen a1so, in typically modest fashion, argued that human security should not be taken as practice which se es security in a people-centred way. Here we begin to glim~se the conundrum
exclusively important, but as a way of leading us to a set of objectives among many, which of human security, what Edw;¡rd Newman latee tenos the 'central paradox of the Idea ID rus
may legitimately cbim our anention. How to integrate ahuman security focus so that it chapter about the United Narions. While human s.:curity calls for a critique of the structures
 Mary Martin and Taylor Owen lntroduction

and norms that produce insecurity, its ontological starting point for scholars and practitioners Taylor Owen puts forward his case for seeing human security not as a choice between
assumes a perperuation of jusr these structures and norms. The 'uncomfortable dualiry' broad and narrow ranges of threats, but rather as thresholds of severity. He sees a definitional
(Newrnan this volume) ofbeing intellecrually challenging while also practically possible suggests aradox at the con: of the human security discourse, that definitions are either narrow, sacri-
both rheoretical as well as operational problems of application. ficing conceptual inregriry for policy utility, or broad, prioritising J literal referemial shifi to the
As Des Gasper observes, human security has displayed an unexpected degree of spread, individual over the needs of policy-rnakers. To overcome this, he proposes a threshold-based
including into gender studies, environrnental studies, migration research and the thinking of approach, whereby threats in any one location would be classified as human security threats if
various organisations. It has been useful because 'it seems to help in generating unexpected they threaten the vital core of rhe individual from critical and pervasrve threats. ThIS, he argues,
insights, through person-centred attention to the intersections of multiple dimensions of life', allows the concept to remain both broad enough to include threats from any cause, but to also
as well as being flexible enough to be used to support cornpletely opposing eonclusions and remain focused on those harms that cause the most harrn.
interventions. Mary Kaldor makes the point that how human security is operationalised matters in
Gasper sets the scene for the definitional and critical chapters which .. follow in chis part, validating its claims to represent something novel in security thinking and practice. Only if ir
by reminding us that ir is the primary purposes of the users of human seeurity which have proves capable of addressing the liv¡;Q experiences of individuals in. dangerous circurnstances,
deterrnined the various interpretations which have emerged. Whether in elaborating a research can it claim to deliver legitimate new forms of power. Hurnan secunry has emerged as a result
programme or in setting a policy orientation, the role required ofhuman securiry, as well as the of profound changes in political authority and chese provide the context in which its relevance
nature of the actor using ir, become irnportant considerations in deciding its definition and how
can be understood.
it will be implernented. In this, human security sits squarely as part of critieal security studies Kaldor's chapter oudines a backdrop of diminished state autonomy, a weakened social
and Robert Cox's ofien quoted remark that 'all theory is for someone and for some purpose' contract berween states and rheir populations, the increase in global forms of governance,
(Cox 1981). Indeed Cox and his contrast between problem-solving and crirical theory features i~dividual as well as state rights, and the changing nature of conflict amid constraints on states'
throughout this volume. The chaprers here dernonstrate how human securiry has reflected recourse to conventional forms of warfare. In this context, human security is 'about extending
both - as opposed to conforming to either one or the other, They also testify to the rernarkable individual rights beyond domestic borders and about developing a capaciry at a global level
pliability it has displayed in the hands of the many who have embraced it. to provide those kinds of emergency services to be deployed in situations where states either
Thus, the broad versus narrow definitional contesr which has become so characteristic of lack capacity or are themselves the violators of rights.' The crux of Kaldor's argument is that
human securiry debates can be seen in a more speeific Iight: it stemmed from a desire on the these changes have not been matched by a profound rethinking on che part of politicalleaders,
one hand by some proponents to move decisively beyond rhe traditional focus on state security, nor a change in mindset necessary to implement human securiry's progressive visión. This
performed by military actors, because it was deemed insuflicient for a new era. Meanwhile point is echoed in Keith Krauses review of the spread of human securiry discourse, in which
others reaeted to the UNDP promotion of the idea in its 1994 Human Development Repon he concludes thar the critical potenrial of the discourse is immanent rarher than actualised.
wirh a desire to retain a focused view' of security, rather than accede ro expanding it .too far, Whatever it prornises, 'actually existing human security remains' J state-centred discourse, which
thus promoting narrow definitions. relies on state resources and complicity to produce improved conditions for individuals.
Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh mounts a defence of the broad view of human security, based on Afier the llJlJ4 Human Development Report, which preved the springboard for Iaunching
rhe concept's ability to add value to security studies, hurnan development and h uman rights, as human security into policy discussions, the debate moved away from broadening securiry,
well as being ano essential approach for undersranding contemporary crises. It represents a turn and focused more on irs application ro physical rhrears and 'freedom from fear". This, Krause
away frorn the 'amoral' position adopted by c1assical IR theorising - another echo of Cox - explains, was consistent with ahistorical idea of security 'intertwined with the srruggle to
and turns on highly normative and ethical consideratións. This means that the concepr cannot control the institutions and insrruments of organised violence' as well as with rhe abiliry of the
be judged solely in rerrns applied to ernpirical and positivist theories such as realism, oron state and rhe Westphálian system to guarantee the.security of its citizens. It also providcd further
whether it is workable. Unlike realism, for Tadjbakhsh human security refuses to succumb to a evidence of state entrenclunerlt in international relations, resistant to the advent of new rhinking,
dominant political agenda, and confronts issues of power relations in internacional relations. A or to dialogues with non-governmental actors ami civil society. It meant that human security
broad definition is esscntial to this purpose. itself was prey to the influence of traditionalist foreign policy bureaucrats, and prone to failure
The radical c1aims made for human security have been a persistent souree of contestation iri attempting to do any more than superficially rearrange power relations in matcers of securiry,
by critics, and there are plenty who disagree wirh this kind of endorsement.On the one hand, Krause suggests. rhis central normative paradox of human security is manifest in multiple
the concept is aeeused of being too vague to represent an alternative paradigm, on the other, subordina te contradicrions. These include the fact that policy initiatives, especially in the area
that it actively subverts itS own transformative potential through attempting to 'securitise' issues of security sector reforrn or post-conflict reconstruction, imply not just a dependence on, bur a
in order to solicit interventions, through exaggerating threats, locating thern in non-tradicional strengthening of the role and resources of the state, even where the state is regarded as a cause of
power centres in the developing world, and substituting crisis management for strategic foreign insecurity. Krause speaks ofhuman security as the 'culmination ofthe liberal projecr ofbuilding
policy visions (Bellamy & McDonald 2002; Duffield & Waddell 2006; ChandJer 2008: 428). strong, legitima te and representative political insritutions', which began with enlightenment
Tadjbakhsh refutes the cricicism that it is too broad and too ambitious as missing the point that ideas of individual rights and personal freedoms. Can it escape its own internal tensions, so me
it needs to be flexible to account for the myriad sources ofinsecurity which blight hunun lives, of which are highlighted by both Kaldor and Krause, to develop into a discourse of fundamental
while the very fact that there are so many differem human security approaches, she argues, changei In other words is human security only the end of something old, or the beginning of
stimulates necessary critica! debates about what constitutes power and legitimacy. something new?
 Mary Martin and Taylar Owen lntroduction

Ryerson Christie's chapter turns up rhe volume on human securiry as ;¡ conundrum by state leve! governance that gives rise to human securiey from below, even though this substiture
exploring in more detail its relevance to critical securiry studies; how scholars in chis field for effective and legirimate authoriry may be messy, imperfecr and itself ridden with erhical
have sought to utilise the concept, yet they ron the risks of engaging with a discourse which
dilemmas.
has demonstrated the resilience of traditional securiry actors. Specific debates which are of The search for human security amid condicions of violence wiU involve such groups as
central importance to liberal scholars, abour broad or narrow versions of buman securiry, or spoilers, competitors and predators, as well as victims rhemselves. They will be tied together in
the relative importance of freedom from feae versus freedom from want, are less compelling for a complex web oflocal power relations. However unsavoury sorne of rhese groups rnight be,
criocal scholars than considerations of power and the chance to ehange the behaviour of states. human securiry will only serve to stem violent conflict if it is inclusive and co-opts rhern. !t
Christie shows thar here again, whatever the abstraer rheoretical position, context and concep- rnust 11M becorne a means for further llurginalisation and communiey divisions, or a form of
ruahsarion have been closely relared. Both have shaped the W'S'f the human securiry discourse 'divide and rule ofla..·'.
has developed. After 9/11 some critical scholars saw human security as a W3y ro re-enter policy The same botrom-up imperative is evident in me use of human security in development
debates and to artack rhe 'war-machine' set in motion by the 'Global Wae on Terror'. Other policies, where rich contextualisation, based on specific experiences in time and. location,
groups have drawn on Foucauldian analysis ro critique human securiry as a fun:n of biopolitics con tributes to its value-added, as Richard Jolly demonstrates with reference to .the diversity of
ro control lives in the Global South through securiry interventions and humznitarian assistance, analysis and prescription in national hurnan development reports. Here again, there is supporr for
or to produce certain kinds of Imowledge (Duffield and Waddell 2006; Grayson 2008). For adopting a broad view of threats, in the perceptions of at-risk individuals as they categonse and
many. including feminist scholars, che value of human security has been to advance debates rank multip!e sources of insecuriry, A broad perspectree helps to direcr pubJic expenditures away
abolle ernanciparion and ethics in global potities. Rather than me narrow versus broad view from tradicional poriArysilos by making visible novel forms of insecuriry, ir raises public awareness
which has dominated our horizon of hurnan securiry, Christie reveals the multiple sub-currents of individual and iarerrelated threats, and aids more efficiem use of resources. Nevertheless,
of acadernic and political agendas which he beneath the surfaee of debates about human choice and resource alIocation are still.significant challenges in carrying through this broadening
securiry, and which portray dilernmas of seeing it as a radical discourse. Is engagement with the of the security agenda, as Richard Jolly notes: His proposal is to change the practices of securiry
policy eomrnuniry an implicit acceptance of the existing unequal terrain of securiry pracrice, and deepen, rather tban simply broaden, analysis ar country and regional levels, including
and in fact merely 'problem-solving'? Like Krause, Christie wonders wherher human securiry condueting more rigorous scrutiny of the way public money is spent on security.
offers critical securiey studies an appropriaee placform for moving securiry practices forward or Human securiry should not only be imagined as an outcome or policy objective. While its
is ir a dead end? The relative failure of hurnan securiry as a domestic policy in Western states ftnaliry, snd identiftable achievement is conceptually and practically problema tic, it should also
is one sign for Christie that human securiry may not represent a new pandigm but simply a be seen as a process; which shapes instirutions, practices and the terrns of debates in interna-
tacrical and strategic choice in readjusting exisring practices, particularly at a time when foreign tional poli ti cs. The ehapter by L10yd Axworthy, former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
securiry policies have been in flux. illustrates rhis in tbe case of rhe Responsibiliry to Prorect (R2P) principle, which emerged
Tbe final chspterin Part 1 suggesrs ways in which human securiry could move forward, and from the Internauonal Commission 00 Inrervention and State Sovereignry (ICISS) in 2001.
assert its relevance by being applied te the increasing problems of rroubled megacities, with The Comrnission's report redefined c1assical stare sovereignry in terrns of states' dury to protect
implic:ations for both domes tic and global policy. Ir offers another reply to crines and critica] their civilian populations, and permiued intervenrion by outsiders in case this dury could not
advocstes of heman securiry concerned that it has been irrevocably subsumed in a traditional be fulfilled. Th~ ICISS repon esrablished atrio of responsibiliries: prevention, reaction and
and hegemonic securiry discourse. Peter Looa and Aybüke Bilgin emphasise the idea of rebuilding ro put civilians at the forefront of decision-making, with (armed) intervention being
vulnerabiliry rather than threats, pointing out thae threats tend to generate oppressive reaction only one and the most extreme of rneasures to enforce the protective dury .
by policy-rnakers, particularly if they take rhe form of military solutions. Tbey argue that states .R2P has become an embodiment of human security in practice, yet has also become
and the international commUnity wiII have to focus on 'long-terro entangled vulnerabilities' regarded as syn;nymous with western milirarist interveruionism (Kaldor 2011). !t challenged
in order to avoid persistenr conflicts and crises, and rhe need for expensive and perpetual ad not only rhe ends of dassical securiry policy, but reconsidered the rneans. In Axworthys phrase:
hoc response mechanisms. Human seeuriey, practised wirhin seaees and regions, rather than as 'the oId model of separate state authoriey simply annot respond to the current generation of
emergency foreign policy agendas, where it is currently predominandy nested, is a conceptual shared challenges' or what Ruti Teitd calls 'humanity's law' - a humanity-based frdmework for
and practical way to deal with the future trajectory of global insecuriry, tbrough prevention, a'ddressing conRict (Teitel 2011). R2P is only one in a uumber of new internarional norms
tackling privation and social marginalisation in places where they are most inflarnmatory. and tools which need to emerge around human security. Axworthy concludes that: '!t is
The megaciry of the future and the challenge of creating human resilience moves us from the evolving concept of coUective securiry that is unique to understanding human securiey.
the contexr and conceptualisation of human securiry, to its poliey value. Part 11 contains an The common experiences of individuals across borders and not solely within borders aud the
extensive, though far from exhaustive, range of policy applications in whicb human securiry opportuniey lO discover innovative and cooperJtive solutions to these threats is what makes the
has been, or is starting to be used. The idea of the scate as the main provider of human securiey concept of securiry unique in this century.' Whatevc:r the uuances of the ICISS report, dealing
remains pivocal, but as Mient Jan Faber and Martijn Dekker describe, under circumstances of with the eircul11stances of mitigated sovereignry, imervention as a top-down response to crises
violence, the focus is also on strategies for self-protection by individuals faced with new forms challenged policy-nukers as to how bese te address insecurity of affected civilian popubtions.
of warfare and 'the chaotic and combustible mixture of identiey polities, organised crime, jennifer Leaning's chapter takes the discussion of human securiey and threats down to the
terrorism and other gruesome forms of violence'. This is the fabric of contemporary conflict, as personal <Ind inMute, highlighring the dramanc psycho-social dimensions of conflict. Here
well as so me forms of state, liable [Q both strength and weakness. It is the absence of functioning agdin, [here is a stark illustration of the differentianon with traditional securiry, in the need to
 Mary Martin and Tay/or Owen lntroduction

pay attention to affective elements such as loss, separation guilt, anger, humiliation and revenge. rhe classical prerogatives of the state and a governing elite, in guarJnteeing safety from physical
These pepper the conflicr environment and contribute to the recursive dynamics of tension attack, whether by foreign enemies or by domestically based groups and individuals. The
and bitterness which prevent posr-confíicr healing and often presage further conflict, and are a question of cornparibiliry between human and national securiry rernains an active ingredient in
hallmark of individual experiences of fear and insecurity. the wider contemporary security debate. Deepayan Basu Ray seeks to explore how the concept
Natural, rather than human engineered disasters, have traditionally appeared to offer less of human security can help to develop arrns control regimes that are fit for purpose in the
scope for preventive action, instead requiring rapid reactive responses, and triggering a heavy twenty-first century, capable of protecting lives and livelihoods. This is no mea n task for human
protective agenda. Given new rhinking in the field of disaster recovery which combines the securiry, because it requires arrns control architecture to overcorne what Basu Ray terrns the
idea of vulnerability and hazards and emphasises a more rights-based approach to those affected 'national security barrier'.
- by disasters, it is perhaps surprising that there has not been more alignment berween natural In rhe case of terrorism, Cindy Jebb and Andrew Gallo argue that tradicional counter-
disasters and human security. This is an agenda which is still evolving, but given momentum by insurgency srrategies, which reify top-down kinetic solutions, miss the poinr about grass-roots
recent disasters such as cyclone Nargis and the Hairi earthquake. Dorothea Hilhorst, Alpaslan individualised sources of insecuriry which fue! rerrorist sympathies. While both these policy
Ózerdem and Erin Smith pose the question whether R2P would be applicable in situations of applications dernonstrate the 'problem-solving' approach which critical scholars might reject
naturally occurring disasters. The difficulties of engaging in universal preventative protection in as sustaining rather rhan ovenurning a dysfunctional or illegitimate use of state power, by
the face of the sovereignty concerns of states, as well as the prevalence of geo-strategic inter- venturing deep into the tradicional sphere of state cornpetence, and showing how it could
national politics, clearly are a hurdle to this alignment with human security. A more pracrical be recalibrated, these chapters illustrate the contemporary appeal and continuing relevance of
concern is that, as a rapid disaster response mechanism, UN sanctioned inrervention under human security discourse. They allow us to judge whether new thinking can confront highly
R2P is too slow and cumbersome, although it may have merits in post-disaster rebuilding, and tradicional conceptualisations of security, to provide creative, innovative policy solutions.
in helping to mitigate future vulnerability. There are other reasons why human security has The idea of ar ms control is appealing ro proponents ofhuman securiry because it sets out to
nor been integrated into disaster management even though ir can provide a useful conceptual control tools of violence, as well as seeking to curb the dorninance of the state in determining
framework for reducing disaster risks: the regulations governing disaster response including the forms of insecurity to which policy solutions rnust be found. Basu Ray points out that
international humanitarian law, humanitarian principIes, human rights, codes of conduct and while lerhal armed violence accounts for over half a rnillion deaths across rhe globe each year,
refugee law have been developed in the frarnework of violent conflict. Applying them in the vast majoriry occur not through conflicts, bur as a result of organised crime or gang killings,
peacetime is ambiguous and sornetimes controversial. However, a more rights-based approach against which heavy armaments, ~hich soak up so much government spending, are irrelevant.
to natural disaster management, and the integration of ideas of vulnerability, resilience and Although sorne arrns control initiatives, such as rhe Convention on Cluster Munitions, focus
prevention, are moving humanitarian r.elief and rebuilding efforts further onto the terrain on protection of. vulnerable civilians, while the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms
scoped out by human security. and Light Weapons forms an importan; part of peacebuilding policies, other imnanves are
In many parts of the world, chronic food insecurity is a major impediment to human framed in the language of hard securiry. Arrns negotiations do not feature expanded notions of
security. Although ir may sometimes be triggered by environmental and natural disasters, as human securiry, and in the words of Basu Ray, they are: 'alarrningly narrow in scope, catering
.Robin Bailey argues, it is also the result of governance failures and aggravated power imbalances. almost exclusively ro military and defence policy needs'., Human securiry offers an alternative
Die hungry lack the econornic power to access affordable food, and to pressure governments. conceptualisation of national security, which docs not deny the Weberian state's role as the
Chronic hunger is concentrated among the poor andmarginalised, most of whom are women, monopoly holder of the legitimate use offorce in protecting its population. However, it brings
and in rural areas. Food and hunger becorne weapons of war and oppression, where govern- in additional perspectives, reworking the understanding of how legitimate securiry needs can
ments deliberately deprive populations of the means to eat. lt is not only govetnménts of rhe contribute to, rather than compete with, socio-eConomic development needs. Thus, far from
Global South whose policies create food vulnerability. The development of biofiiels by the beinz outside the discursive field of arrns control, human securiry can help shape the way it is
US .and EU is credited with increasing the volatility of commodity prices and-aggravating negoriared ro produce a consistency between governtnent responsibilities of SOcial protection
food insecurity. Not only is human security jeopardised by people being hungry, emergency and service delivery on the one hand, and national securiry on the other. An individual-centric
responses are also often inappropriate, tailored to interest groups in donor countries rather rhan approach could reframe arms control to indude not just development issues, but also human
the vulnerable, and disempowering when they are provided in-kind rather than in-cash, and rights, and an emphasis on transparency and accountability.
sourced internationally. For Jebb and Gallo, a human securiry perspecti ve opens up the security aperture in important
Food security is likely to become a more intense challenge in the decades ahead: popularion ways, which can make counter-terrorism more effective. Ir can also address issues of the
growth, economic development and climate change could combine to trigger regional food contested legitimacy of anti-terrorist activities, which are socially and politically divisive. Their
crises, commodity price spikes, droughts and floods, and higher incidence of diseases. Almost reading of human securiry is not as the antithesis of counter-insurgency, but as a framework for
one person in seven is already hungry and starvation is rising in parts of the world. Human the use of more effective tools to comain ir. Key elements in this framework are the impor-
security policies to tackle this aggravated abuse of the most basic of needs should go beyond tance of individual, local and holistic perspectives, and the divergence between rhe agendas of
humanitarian responses, handing out relief supplies. They need to also ernpower people to acr, internacional security actors and the interests of communities where terrorists are based, where
to reclaim both local and global politics, assert their rights and hold governments to account. (in)securiry is close!y linked to the lack of basic needs and infrastructures.
The last two chapters in this pan on global challenges deal with a more tradicional terrain Jebb and Gallo's focus is on the nature of the insurgency, deconstrucring what is required to
of security policy. National defence and its contemporary bedfellow, counter-rerrorism, reflect confront it more efficiendy than traditional rneasures based on force and coercion. They base
 Mary Mar/in and Taylor Owel/
IlItroduc/ion

rheir presentarion of an alternative on the fact that rerrorisrn is a securiry environment, which
overnments retain rhe pr imary role for ensuring the survival, livdihood and dignity of citizens,
presents primari1y non-military challenges, and that human security can open an explorarion of
and that human security was an 'invaluable tool' helping rhern to do rhis (UNSG 2010:1). The
non-rnilitary elements of power, which both feed ir and can be used to respond to it.
experience of rhe UN as the originator ofhuman securiry as a policy discourse leads Newman
In Part I1I, we look at me operationalisation of human security from another perspective,
ro condude thar ir is neirher a paradigm-shifiing nor ernancipatory ruovement; 'ar best, it would
that of policy actors who have taken up rhe concept and rnade it part of their security discourse.
be an incremental, contingent process within an imperfect system'.
Here rhe lens is both conceptual and practice-grounded. Authors writing on Africa, Asia.japan,
A similar conservarism, which sees human seeurity in reduced terrns as an addirional
the UN and E show how human securiry has been taken up within different insutunonal
component to exisring policy approaches, is to be found in the EU's adoption of human
settings, with policy-rnakees seeking to apply it as an approach to specific issues.
securiry. In rhe han of the Exremal Relations couunissioner Benita Ferrero- \,\'.Jldner, rhe
Policy entrepreneurs, wbether operating ar narional, supranational, rransnational or regional
EU's initiatives were often overtly Iabelled as hurnan seeurity, bur they were much more sollo
level, have been an essential component in the evolution of human security discourse. The
vvc~. when applied by rhe EU Higb Representative Javier Solana who was answerable to EU
concept is notable for the fact that ir emerged neither in the non-governmental community,
member states within the inrergovernrnental dil1lension ofEU foreign policy. The EU turned
nor in a state, but in incernanonal organisations such as the UN and later in the EU. Witrun
to human security as not only consistent with its arnbirions as a global actor; and its genesis as
these contexts ir was individual thinkers and politicians who were pivotal in promoting a
a peace project without primary responsibility for territorial defence (this was NATO's task),
different approach to securiry, Mahbub-ul-Haq and Anurtya Sen are among [he 'fathers' of
but also because it could provide ID identity narrative ar a key moment in 2003, when mernber
human securiry :!S a philosophically grounded discourse. In me policy arena there have been
states faced a deep and damaging sclúsm over the invasion of Iraq. As Javier Solana rernembers,
equally indispensable pioneers such as Kofi Arman and Yulio Takasu ar the UN, Javier Solana
human security filled a narrative void in me quest for the EU to developas a particular kind of
and Benita Ferrero- Waldner at the EU and Salim Ahmed SaIim at the Organisation of African
securiry actor: it was available and appropriate in a W3'f which other security discourses were
Uniry, State politicians such as Keizo Obuchi, who set Japan on ahuman securiry course, and
nor. If it did nor bind the 27 member states togerher, neither was it going to necessarily drive a
Lloyd Axworthy, who \VaS instrumental in leacling Canada's campaigns on land mines and
wedge between them, providing a backdrop for collective action. For some states - particularly
R2P which are described in the policy challenges section. In Costa Rica under Oscar Arias,
rhe more powerful such as the UK, Frunce and Germany -·it was less acceptable, which explains
Switzerland and Austria, rhere have been similar stories ofhow human securiry was promoted
the difference in enthusiasm with which the EU's High Representarive, who was answerable to
as a result of personal or insennional policy iniriarive.
them, used the term cornpared with rhe External Relations commissioner, who was noto
These accounts reveal noe only how the concepthas been disserninated and its policy urility
In this part we are able to discern rhe polirics of human securiry. These consist not only of
increased. They also show bow in~titutional intervenrion was important in shaping under-
the fundamental tensions over how me individual as rhe referent object should reframe security
standings of hÚman securieg, and how in turn the concepc has helped to define certain global
practice. Polirics dictate if, when and how human security is used as an approach to securiry
actors. UN forums and thematic debates have been at the forefront of developing not only
challenges. Human security is controversial because it challenges the relationship between
specific human securiry practices, but underpinning che concept with a new understanding of
governments and their own population, often making them feel uncomfortable in respect of
state sovereignry, in the concexr of.changing norms about individual rights. R2P began as a
their obligations to them. Ir irnposes a responsibility and duty of care, which also has repercus-
human security initiative, and has been endorsed in official reports such as the High-Ievel Pul/el
sions in how states are viewed by other sr-ates.In extreme circumstances this norm provides the
01/ Threats, Challenfies and Cha/lgt: and the 2005 World Summic Outcorne document, and UNSC
justification for ehallenging their sovereignry and territorial integrity. Thus sorne see hurnan
resolutions, notab1y 1973, of 17 March 2011, authorising armed intervention in Libya. Vet
securiry as an exrerision of the 'hurnan rights imperialisrn', linked ro a Westem attempt to
institutional take-up has nor been a story of unrnitigated progress.
impose 'liberal' values on rhird party states. The politics of human securiry mean that rather
Edward Newman anal}'S6 how, despite ies role as the originator of human security policy,
than being the expression of a uniV\:rial set of valu·es, as its proponenes intended, it is often a
rhe UN has declined to caIre a 'critical' approach, instead attempting to promote hwnan
calculated attempt on the part of certain aclOrs not to advance a humanitarian agenda but to
security witrun existing poIirical, legal and normative comtraints. Thus human security has
enhance their relative power and advamage. As well as considering the motives berund state
developed alongside UN pucrices that uphold sta te sovereignty and a traditional Westphalian
and org-anisations' sponsorship of hwnan security, we also need to consider the evidenee of
view of the world. The UN a1so uses state forums as the means through wruch to il11plement
why certain actors have sueceedeil or failed in persuacling others to accept trus as a worldview
ies vision of human security_ Neither has the organisation used the concept to develop a
and policy approach. As the chapters in this part show empirically, the sllccess of poliey entre-
consensus normarive view on issues ofjustice and rights, instead tolerating differences amongst
preneurs depends on a host of factors which are independent of the moral and ethical validity
states. What has emerged is a state-centric view of human security, which plays down ies
of human security ideas. Withou[ engaging in an extensive theoretical discussion of a core
transformative potential and depends on a trade-off with member states, encouraging their
theme in International Relations, !he accounts show the presence of a nuxture of classic power
acceptance of its Iess radical implications in exchange for tolerating ir as a generic policy labeL
relations, econonuc resources, competence in policy entrepreneurship, individual leadership,
Here again we return to the central paradox of hUl11an security, that it works inside a given
events and conducive contexts, among others.
reality of security rather than seeking to change ir. The UN's human security initiatives do not
How and why human security is operJtionalised is as vigorous a source of contestation in
question existing struetures power, gender and distribution. Indeed UN polieies see a strong
the debate as the definition,,1 differences which were highlighted in the first pan of this book
state as a necessary requirement for individual seeurity, despite the obvious problel11s in making
(Debiel and Werthes 2006). Perhaps ironically for a cliscourse which is predonunantly about
some states guarantors of a security wruch they thel11selves undermÍne daily. Trus is evident for
foreign policy, Japan WdS one of the eJrliest proponents of human security. Ir \Vas prompted by
example, as Newman poines out, in the Secretary-General's 2010 report wrueh observed that
the Asian financial crisis of 1<),)7-l\, and the response to crisis which was a domestie polities of
 Mary Martin and Taylor Owen
!ntroduction

austerity, in which financia! institutions left people without a socia! safery net. Japan sponsored
selection of some of these, in considering the inrerrelations between human securiry and risk
and encouraged the setting up of the UN Hurnan Security Trust Fund to help vulnerable
analysis, economics and resource allocation, research methodology, and internacional law. In
people ar a global and regional leve!. Its firsc beneficiaries were in Japan's neighbourhood.
some respects, chis part embodies the stiffest test of the validity of human security, for without
Japan's approach was collaborative, exemplified by network initiatives which it pioneered,
adequate tools, or the ability to integrate human securiry into areas such as law, econornics and
such as the Friends ofHuman Security. !ts priority was to not only ensure thar initiatives would
geography, the concept wil! wirher. It wil! be little more than an interesting intellectual exercise,
be mulrilareral, but they would also keep a broad view of human securiry on the table, and
rendering rnoor the arguments in favour of a new approach to securiry, which has been set out
provide conceptual, political and financial backing for UN policies to rnaintain a freedom from
in the preceding pares. -
fear perspective. For japan this meant that human security could continue to be used flexibly
Syed Mansoob Murshed explains how economics is significant to undersranding the causes
and across a range of policy requirements, from financia! crises, to health epidernics and natural
ofhuman insecuriry as well as devising policy responses to deliver nor only freedom from want,
catastrophes. Like the EU, human security was an expression of japanese identity. As Yukio
but also freedorn from fear. Economic policy for development requires an absence of violent
Takasu explains, it resonates culturally with japanese artitudcs and is nota ble forobeing not a
threats. The capaciry of conflict to derail growth has also brought econornics further into
source of contention as it is in the case of many orher policy actors, but a bipartisan idea! which
security studies in recent years. Mursheds, chapter shows how this gap berwcen securiry and
is shared inside and outside of government.
econoruic discourses is narrowing, and that human securiry can help in aligning them more
East Asia rernains irnportanr in the evolution of human security thinking and practice. Paul
closely.
Evans' chapter shows how it has served to rein in dominant conceptions of hurnan security
Gerd Oberleitner shows that the operationalisation of human securiry through law is often
as a liberal prescription for a well-functioning security order. It is also an incubator of ideas
implicit rathcr than explicir, wirh recourse to related, but not always synonymolls ideas, and
for dealing with rransnational problems. Security co-operation is paramount in Asian versions
through an ernphasis on components such as human rights, dignity and empowerment. Where
of the discourse, as is [he importance of non-traditional securiry thinking. Both features are
law is more explicitly supportive of human securiry is inits deconstruction of state sovereignty. It
ambiguous about whether the state is the primary or only force capable of addressing regional
underpins a search to re-imagine a world in which individuals are the focus of cfforts at protection,
problems. As the vicrirns of recurrent natural disasters, Asian countries' focus on environmental
developrnent, assistance and wellbeing, and supports their role as driver; of a cosmopolitan securiry,
degradation and the adaptation to climate change a!so represents a more contemporary working
Taylor Owen builds on his threshold definition outlined in chapter 1 ro show how human
of the discourse, but one which is like!y to become more significant in future.
securiry can be measured and mapped. His method for going írom a broad conceptual
The African Union's motives behind its advocacy of human security stemmed also from
framework rhrough to threat identification, data collection, mapping and analysis shows ho:-" a
need on its doorstep, and the perception that traditional understandings of securiry had
seemingly boundless concept tan be empirically assessed at a local leve!.
contributed ro Africa's security and economic predicamento The AU turned to human securiry
The chaprer on research methods and conflict analysis by Mary Martin and Denisa
to fill a void which emerged afier 9/11, which was ideational as well as political. The African
Kostovicova opens up an under-explored front in human securi~y studies, which attempts
Union became as, Thomas Tieku describes: 'an instrument for the prornotion and socialization
to find ways of investigating insecurity consistent with rhe shifi ' away from nation stares
of human security ideas at the interstate leve!. Almost all decisions, declarations and protocols
as the dominant reference point for analysis, focusing on people and grollps. Methods are
that African leaders adopted in the first eight years since the formation of the AU had strong
also importanr in ernphasising' the lllultiple interlinked nature of insecurityat this level, and
human securiry undertones.'
achieving the empowerment, rather than the parbologicisation of individuals. Here again, as
Human security served, as with other proponents, to cement the AU's sense of identity as
with law, rhis is work in progress for human security scholars and practitioners.
a regional actor, and cohesion arnong member states. This in turn enhanced its standing in
It is entirely appropi-iate.that this volurne should end with contributions which look (orward,
cornparison to its predecessor, the Organisarion for African Unity. The participation of civil
and pose new questions of'the discourse. The story of human securiry is, like any other, woven
society in co-operation anddevelopment programrnes, which was pare 'of the human security
together through histori~al events, che intervention of individual efforts and institurional
narra tive, also supplied an essential missing link in the development of Pan-Africanism, making
innovation. The chapters in this book attempt to capture the flavour of an extraordinary two
it acceptable to elites and grass roots., The AU's use of human security is also an example of
..•. decades, rich in intellectual endeavour and policy challenge, and hold out a promise that there
the depth of soci~tion and codification the concept has undergone: ir is not only enshrined
is still more to learn about human securiry, what ir is and how we deliver it.
in legal instrurnents applicable at regional and national government level, but the AU has a!so
worked hard to embed it in security practices among continental elites.
In the final part, we analyse human security as a practical approach to security issues and References
dilemmas. Although the concept has frequently been disrnissed as of lirnited utility bécause it is Bellamy, Alex J. and Mal! McDonald (2002) 'The utility of human security: which humans? What
too fuzzy, as Parts 11and III show, there are widespread thematic and geographic applications, security? A reply to Thomas & Tow', Semri(y Dialoyue 33(3): 373-377.
and atternpts to implement the ideas which underpin it. This part shows how human securiry Chandler, David (2008) 'Human securiry: the dog rhat didn't bark', Semri(y Di,lIo)!"e 39(4): 427-43R.
can be viewed as a methvd of security, not only as a desirable end sta te. Practising it in ways Cox, Robert (19Hl) 'Social forces, states, and world orders: beyond international relations ¡heory',
which are, at a rninimum, consistent with its defining chacacteristic as hllman-centred, and
Mil/e"l/i"/Ii: )"""",1 cif !nrff/I<I(i<>II,'¡ Sil/die; 10(2): 204-254.
Debie1,Tobias and Sascha Werthes (eds) (2006) HIIIII<III Semri(y 011Fore;)!,1IPoliry A)?end<l" Ch<l,,)!e.>, COl/eep(s
paying more than !ip service to its normative proposition, is an essential part of the discursive cwd elses (Duisburg: Eigenverlag).
shift from traditional security approaches. These challenges are as acute for social scientists Duffie!d,Mark and Nicho!as WaddeU(2006) 'Securing humoll; in a dangerous world', I//(en",(;o//"I Poli(ies
and the Academy as for security practitioners. The chapters in this part set out [O illustcate a 43: ]-23.
 Mary Martin and Taylor Owen

Crayson, Kyle (2008) 'Human security as power/knowledge: the biopolitics of a definitiorul debate',
Cambridge Review of [lIlalldlio'I<I1 Aff.lirs 21(3): 383-40l.
Kaldor, Macy (2011) 'A decade of the "War on Terror" and the responsibiliry [O protect: the global
debate abour military intervention', Social Scieute Research Coul1ol Essay FOnll/l: Ten }é,1TS ,Jjter &plelllber
11. Avaibble online: hetp://essays.ssrc.orgllOyeacsafrer911/a-decade-of-the-%E2%80%9Cwar-on- PARTI
terror%E2o/080%9D-and-the-%E2%80%9Cresponsibility-to-protect%E2%80''109D-the-global-debate-
about-rniliucy-imervention-2/ (accessed 10 January 2013).
Newman, Edwa.cd (2001) 'Human security and cofiSecuctivism'.IJlItTll<¡lioll<l1 Studies Penpectives 2: 239-51.
Paris, Roland (2001) 'Human
Teitel, Ruri (20ll) HIIIII","ry~
security: paradigm shifi or hor a.ic?', International Sewrity
Lnv (New Yorlc Oxford Unívtriity Press).
26(2): 87-102f
Concepts of human security
UNSG (2010) Generai ~",bly, 'Human securiry, Repon of the Secretary-Ceneral', 8 Macch 2010,
A/641701, p. 1.