Aspects of Human Security Essay

Introduction

In the past years, countries valued the traditional security system that focused on the problems of national safety matters within the country. Nations gave priority to the military approach to handle situations of insecurity while neglecting the role of citizens in the mix. Several arguments were made about the significance of incorporating the value of people. In the early 1990s, the idea of human security started becoming popular after the report from United Nations Development Program (UNDP) assessed its fundamental to the wellbeing of the individuals and the government. Human security is essential for persons’ supremacy to have the liberties and protections guarantee comfortable lives. The concept is also useful for the US national security decisions because it can depend on it to lower such threats as economic and social issues.

The idea of human security became popular in the early 1994. The concept emerged internationally in 1994 from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) report about Human Development, where it provided for the place of individuals in the traditional security system. The advancement came into place immediately after the post-cold war. In relation to the report, arguments were made that besides military and territorial concerns, human security is fundamental and deals with matters of life and dignity.¹ To be able to understand it further, UNDP separated its main principle of the concept.

The focus of human security is on citizens, and the primary goal is to provide empowerment and protection to the individuals from traditional threats such as the military and other aspects, including poverty and illnesses, which can cause fear in the society.² Before the inception of the human security concept, the main area of focus was the safety of the state, and most essential aspects of life were not given priority. The idea integrates three elements of freedom: liberty from want, fear, and indignity.

Freedom of wants guarantees individuals to meet their basic needs in order to live a comfortable life. Human security protects people from severe threats that might hinder them from succeeding in obtaining their wants. Human beings require stable economic and interactive social conditions to enhance their activities towards satisfying their livelihoods. The protection they receive makes it easier for them to remain focused in their endeavors in a more productive manner.

Similarly, it guaranteed people freedom from fear by ensuring protection of the citizens from possible threats to their security that can interfere with their wellbeing. They include fear from physical integrity and violence from other nations that directly impact the people.³ It also encompasses protecting the individuals from the country’s actions that can adversely instill panic in humans. Therefore, the concept of human security ensures persons are free from all forms of threats that can affect their lives.

It also promoted welfare of human beings through ensuring there is freedom of indignity. This liberty allows for the development of people’s wellbeing through having an improved quality of life. People prefer decent living conditions and peaceful coexistence; thus, they have to be protected from all forms of humiliation that can make them have a horrible lifestyle.⁴ Human security, therefore, allows individuals to have the ability to make their own choices without interferences and to explore all possible opportunities that can empower them.

Generally, the concept of human security is based on various principles. First, it is people-centered to ensure individuals experience freedom from possible threats that might interfere with their wellbeing. The key area of focus and analysis in its operations is how individuals’ livelihood and survival are maintained accordingly to facilitate better life.⁵ The aim is to ensure individuals have access to unlimited freedom to improve their abilities to enable proper exploration of their potentials.

Second, it is multi-sectoral because deals with various aspects of insecurities, making it have a broader understanding of the different threats and their causes. Therefore, it implies that the concept is not concentrated in one element but rather focuses on a variety of areas that might create harmful effects on the lives of people.⁶ Apart from the national safety it encompasses, the concept entails environmental, economic, political, community, and personal security.

Third, human security is prevention-oriented to enable it provide safety for the people from insecurities, the idea is focused on preventing and formulating strategies to enhance the protection of the people. The concept develops and introduces viable plans that would enable the country to implement effective techniques to handle the risks and related roots, thus making it easier to prevent similar event-form occurring hence ensuring the safety of the individuals.

Lastly, it is comprehensive and context-specific to ensure it emphasizes on total cooperation amongst various sectors to deduce agendas concerning human rights, development, and security. It also acknowledges that that is considerable variation in matters of insecurities based on the setting. The concept, therefore, encourages the establishment of a relevant solution to respond to the conditions in accordance with the specific issue at hand.⁷ This would ensure an effective outcome when dealing with multiple situations that require intervention.

The US national security aims at ensuring the safety of the people from possible attacks and criminal activities that might affect the development of the individuals in the country. To promote the level of safety in the State, the government should ensure it make substantial decisions that aim at improving the self-efficiency of the nation. In addition, there should be an adequate food supply and an accommodative environment for the residents and citizens of the nation.⁸ Therefore, the federal government should incorporate the concept of human security by reviewing available economic, social, and development policies to ensure it provides effective protection to the people.

The concept of human security is fundamental in enhancing the development and growth of a country; therefore, it should be given close attention. By focusing on the idea, the federal government would be able to identify areas worth improving in the communities to open for people opportunities to explore their potentials. This would make people committed and have better living standards leaving a limited number of individuals idle. When individuals have access to healthcare, food security, and a conducive living environment, their dignity and wellbeing are improved.

Currently, most of the concern issues include economic security, which entails a high rate of unemployment and persistent poverty. There is health security, ranging from unsafe food insufficient healthcare facilities to infectious illnesses. Personal security with such threats as crime, child labor, terrorism, physical and domestic violence. Furthermore, there is environmental security bringing such fears as pollution, land degradation, natural disasters, and depletion of available resources.

In summary, the conception and implementation of the idea of human security have proven vital in enhancing the welfare of the people from various angles. The concept allows people to be free from possible threats that might hinder general productivity. It enables individuals to have a sense of belonging and their safety supported. It is also essential for the US national security decision to promote a deep understanding of areas of focus to minimize insecurity.

Question Two

Global Public Goods

In the economy, there are goods and services that countries produce and consume together without restrictions. These commodities are perceived as necessary for the people, and using them by one group does not diminish them for other individuals. Even though the products are essential to the nations, it is always challenging for the countries to work together to solve problems associated with the global public goods. Different governments cannot cooperate effectively to ensure the supply of global public goods exceeds the demand.

In the economic context, the term global public good refers to a commodity, a service, or a measure that an individual can consume without reducing the amount available for consumption by other people. These products provide benefits that are extended across countries’ borders. The quantity available for persons’ use is massive at a reduced cost making a large number of human beings to be able to access them. Global public goods are non-exclusive, which determines their purity.⁹ Human beings gain from them at different degrees depending on their essential to a particular person. The availability of goods and services to everyone diminishes the incentives by the private sector. Their use does not initiate any form of rivalry amongst users, either states or citizens making them non-rival.

Global public goods can be described according to issues that are perceived essential to the international community that the people or countries cannot address effectively when they are acting in an individual capacity. It, therefore, calls for a legitimate process by the nations to make the relevant decision concerning them.¹⁰ The goods or services require cooperation from the respective nation to achieve the set objective. Some of the global public goods include prevention of global warming, scientific knowledge used in the development of a vaccine, international approaches to enhancing financial stability, and telecommunication regulations. After establishing the standards, the services are made available to all countries and can be consumed by any person without depriving the availability to other individuals.

Despite the fact that global public goods are non-exclusive and benefit all countries, there is a limited rate of cooperation amongst nations towards the provision of the goods and services. There are various factors that make countries less willing to devote themselves to finding the solution to the products.¹¹ The principle of voluntary contribution plays a significant role in influencing the problem. Such aspects as free-ride prompt some nations to restrain from participating in proving the services and commodities.

By principle, once global public good is produced, every nation is entitled to consume it. It is non-exclusive; thus, irrespective of whether a country contributed to its production or boycotted, they will still be guaranteed to access the services and goods. The problem of free-ride makes some governments remain less participative, making the demand for the commodities exceed supply.¹² Since others cannot be excluded from consuming the end products, the cooperation rate is reduced.

To successfully produce a particular global public good, the individual efforts of different countries acting separately have to be added. Making this summation effective becomes a challenge because it is difficult to ensure all the participants comply accordingly and continuously maintain the necessary momentum for long-term involvement.¹³ This makes it challenging for countries to cooperate towards finding the needed solutions hence persistence of the challenges.

The influence of sovereignty makes most governments to reject the idea of having limited controls by subjecting to the rules set by international bodies. This aspect makes them reluctant to join and engage in the production of global public goods. Such countries prefer restraining from participating in activities that would enhance the intervention towards a successful good and service.¹⁴ The cooperation requires a high level of reliability and commitment from countries that some nations, according to their sovereignty, would be unwilling to offer.

Traditionally, global commons refer to specific parts of the planet that none of the nations have control over and can thus be accessed by any country. According to international law, the main identified global commons are the Atmosphere, the Deep-Sea Beds, Outer Space, Antarctica, and the High Seas. Being that they exist outside the jurisdiction of the individual government, there is a requirement to establish a collective decision-making approach concerning how they can be governed effectively. In the past centuries, access to the resources within the global commons was a challenge, and they were idle and abundant in supply. Currently, with the development of science and advancement in technology, human beings have managed to reach and exploit the commodities located in such areas.¹⁵ The demand for those assets has resulted in various activities such as bioprospecting, flight, fisheries, and scientific research.

The global commons is greatly in danger following the increased human activities towards accessing the resources within the regions. The installation of submarine cables and oil pipelines may result in accidents leading to spillage on the water bodies, thus making them unfit for consumption and aquatic life.¹⁶ Similarly, the massive emission of greenhouse gases into the Atmosphere has diverse effects on the protective level known as the ozone layer. These involvements have caused the increasing global warming causing varied climatic conditions.

Most companies and nations have invested in space projects where they aim at taking their satellites into space to enhance their scientific research activities. Following limited regulation, there are many countries that have established their massive projects in outer space to study about the interstellar. When the engineering becomes defective, they destroy them, leaving the debris in the Atmosphere interfering with the nature of outer space. Similarly, most countries have transformed into the industrial revolution, which makes the number of industries globally producing carbon high. Such gases cause the rate of global warming to increase, affecting the world’s climate. For example, ice in Antarctica has been melting progressively following the increase in temperature, making the ocean water level rise to dangerous levels.

In conclusion, even though countries acknowledge and are ready to solve the problem of global public goods, some governments are not willing to participate following the fear of free-ride and losing sovereignty. These factors reduce their ability to cooperate in providing goods and services. The excessive exploitation of resources available in the global commons has increased the danger of the world putting human lives at risk.

Bibliography

Akgul, Arif, Cuneyt Gurer, and Hasan Aydin. “Exploring the victimization of Syrian refugees through the human security model: An ethnographic approach.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 21, no. 1 (2021): 46-66. Web.

Aydemir, Ilhan. Testing the Impact of State-Society Relations on Human Security. Northern Illinois University, 2018.

Brando, Nicolás, Christiaan Boonen, Samuel Cogolati, Rutger Hagen, Nils Vanstappen, and Jan Wouters. “Governing as commons or as global public goods: Two tales of power.”International Journal of the Commons 13, no. 1 (2019). Web.

Brooks, Cassandra M., Larry B. Crowder, Henrik Österblom, and Aaron L. Strong. “Reaching consensus for conserving the global commons: The case of the Ross Sea, Antarctica.” Conservation Letters 13, no. 1 (2020) Web.

Brown, Gordon, and Daniel Susskind. “International cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36, no. Supplement_1 (2020): S64-S76. Web.

Chattu, Vijay Kumar, Andy Knight, K. Srikanth Reddy, and Obijiofor Aginam. “Corrected and Republished: Global Health Diplomacy Fingerprints on Human Security.” International Journal of Preventive Medicine 11, no. 1 (2020). Web.

Dandashly, Assem. “EU democracy promotion and the dominance of the security–stability nexus.”Mediterranean Politics 23, no. 1 (2018): 62-82. Web.

Green, Jessica F. “Beyond carbon pricing: Tax reform is climate policy.”Global Policy 12, no. 3 (2021): 372-379. Web.

Hauser, Oliver P., Christian Hilbe, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A. Nowak. “Social dilemmas among unequals.”Nature 572, no. 7770 (2019): 524-527. Web.

Howe, Brendan M., Sorpong Peou, and Yuji Uesugi. “Global Governance Principles and UN Implementation.” In UN Governance, pp. 1-32. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021. Web.

Kenny, Charles, Mallika Snyder, and Dev Patel. “Measures of global public goods and international spillovers.” Center for Global Development Working Paper 474 (2018). Web.

Kocher, Martin G., Fangfang Tan, and Jing Yu. “Providing global public goods: Electoral delegation and cooperation.” Economic Inquiry 56, no. 1 (2018): 381-397. Web.

Newman, Edward. “Human security.” In Routledge Handbook of Peace, Security and Development, edited By Fen Osler Hampson, Alpaslan Özerdem, and Jonathan Kent 33-44. Routledge, 2020.

Shiroishi, Yoshihiro, Kunio Uchiyama, and Norihiro Suzuki. “Society 5.0: For human security and well-being.” Computer 51, no. 7 (2018): 91-95. Web.

Van Aaken, Anne. “Behavioral aspects of the international law of global public goods and common pool resources.”American Journal of International Law 112, no. 1 (2018): 67-79. Web.

Zervaki, Antonia. “Human security and climate change mitigation: The case of ocean governance.”Marine Policy 98 (2018): 286-294. Web.

Footnotes

• 1 Newman, Edward. “Human security.” In Routledge Handbook of Peace, Security and Development, eds. Fen Osler Hampson, Alpaslan Özerdem, and Jonathan Kent (New York: Routledge, 2020), 33-44.
• 2 Shiroishi, Yoshihiro, Kunio Uchiyama, and Norihiro Suzuki. “Society 5.0: For human security and well-being.” Computer 51, no. 7 (2018): 91-95.
• 3 Dandashly, Assem. “EU democracy promotion and the dominance of the security–stability nexus.” Mediterranean Politics 23, no. 1 (2018): 62-82.
• 4 Akgul, Arif, Cuneyt Gurer, and Hasan Aydin. “Exploring the victimization of Syrian refugees through the human security model: An ethnographic approach.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 21, no. 1 (2021): 46-66.
• 5 Chattu, Vijay Kumar, Andy Knight, K. Srikanth Reddy, and Obijiofor Aginam. “Corrected and Republished: Global Health Diplomacy Fingerprints on Human Security.” International Journal of Preventive Medicine 11, no. 1 (2020).
• 6 Howe, Brendan M., Sorpong Peou, and Yuji Uesugi. “Global Governance Principles and UN Implementation.” In UN Governance, pp. 1-32. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021.
• 7 Zervaki, Antonia. “Human security and climate change mitigation: The case of ocean governance.” Marine Policy 98 (2018): 286-294.
• 8 Aydemir, Ilhan. Testing the Impact of State-Society Relations on Human Security. Northern Illinois University, 2018.
• 9 Brando, Nicolás, Christiaan Boonen, Samuel Cogolati, Rutger Hagen, Nils Vanstappen, and Jan Wouters. “Governing as commons or as global public goods: Two tales of power.” International Journal of the Commons 13, no. 1 (2019).
• 10 Van Aaken, Anne. “Behavioral aspects of the international law of global public goods and common pool resources.” American Journal of International Law 112, no. 1 (2018): 67-79.
• 11 Kocher, Martin G., Fangfang Tan, and Jing Yu. “Providing global public goods: Electoral delegation and cooperation.” Economic Inquiry 56, no. 1 (2018): 381-397.
• 12 Hauser, Oliver P., Christian Hilbe, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Martin A. Nowak. “Social dilemmas among unequals.” Nature 572, no. 7770 (2019): 524-527.
• 13 Brown, Gordon, and Daniel Susskind. “International cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36, no. Supplement_1 (2020): S64-S76.
• 14 Green, Jessica F. “Beyond carbon pricing: Tax reform is climate policy.” Global Policy 12, no. 3 (2021): 372-379.
• 15 Kenny, Charles, Mallika Snyder, and Dev Patel. “Measures of global public goods and international spillovers.” Center for Global Development Working Paper 474 (2018).
• 16 Brooks, Cassandra M., Larry B. Crowder, Henrik Österblom, and Aaron L. Strong. “Reaching consensus for conserving the global commons: The case of the Ross Sea, Antarctica.” Conservation Letters 13, no. 1 (2020).