Introduction
The development of the theory of international relations and international security has long depended on the debate between the two groups: realists and idealists. Realists, drawing mainly on Hobbes, maintain that the sole way to achieve security is the balance of power between states threatening each other with inevitable retaliation for possible transgressions (Battersby and Siracusa, p. 40). Idealists, borrowing from Kant, suggested that the promotion of certain universal norms of international discourse would do more for ensuring security than simple military parity (Battersby and Siracusa, p. 48). The realist perspective had dominated international relations throughout the 20th century, but the crises arising from the 1990s onward have cast doubts on its applicability (Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, pp. 22-25). Sovereign states’ inability to deal with emerging security challenges prompted the notion of Human Security – a new and broadly-defined idealist vision of international relations centered on the rights of individual human beings rather than states.
Main body
Before addressing what Human Security is, it is necessary to briefly describe what it is not, as the concept itself has emerged as a reaction against traditional notions of security. In the realist theoretical framework, the national state is the ultimate actor in all international relations, and all concepts employed, including security, relate to it directly. As a result, in realist political thought, the notion of global security became synonymous with the “promotion and protection of state sovereignty by military and diplomatic means” (Peou, p. 49). Hence, the realist perspective invariably reduces the concept of security to national states and their sovereignty: even security on the international level becomes just a constellation of sovereign states, each protecting security of its own. However, this propensity to make a modern nation-state the ultimate criterion and pivotal actor of international security had undergone a severe trial after the Cold War finally ended.
The last decade of the 20th century saw the emergence of several new factors that rendered the state-centric system of international security at least partially obsolete. First of all, the post-Cold War world experienced a sudden surge of intra-state wars – military conflicts fought not between states, but among different groups within the same state (Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, p. 21). Examples of such conflicts include the dissolution of Yugoslavia and “civil wars in Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, the democratic republic of Congo, and elsewhere” (Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, p. 21). The balance of power between states did nothing to avert these threats, as the states collapsed from within rather than being attacked from the outside. Secondly, the UN, not being torn apart between the two conflicting political camps anymore, could finally “play a more direct part in resolving conflict,” as when authorizing the response against Iraq’s aggression in 1991 (Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, p. 26). Finally, the increasing international recognition of universal human rights was also a meaningful development (Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, p. 27). This weakness of nation-states, combined with increased potential for supranational action in the name of universal human rights, gave rise to Human Security.
When speaking of Human Security, one should understand that its definition is rather loose. The scholars studying Human Security are well aware of this problem: for instance, Mack points out that its definition is so broad it may lose “any descriptive power” (qtd. in Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy, p. 38). Still, one can establish two basic features essential for Human Security as a concept. One is the concentration on human beings rather than states. As Alkire puts it, Human Security aims to “protect the vital core of all human lives” rather than the national states’ sovereignty (qtd. in Tajbakhsh and Chenoy, p. 36). Another key feature of Human Security is a dedication to action on a supranational rather than purely national level. According to Thomas, the focus of Human Security is on the “international system rather than states” (qtd. in Tajbakhsh and Chenoy, p. 40). As for the broad definition, it also has a positive effect: in the words of Rolland Paris, it allows “uniting a diverse coalition of actors” (qtd. in Tajbakhsh and Chenoy, p. 39). Hence, Human Security rests on two pillars: precedence of people over states and devotion to international rather than national action.
These two features naturally lead to the conclusion that should the situation demand it, the international community may act to preserve Human Security without regard to national sovereignty, especially when the nation-state itself represents the security threat. As the concept of Human Security holds states responsible for “fulfilling certain standards of human rights and welfare,” failure to do so may mandate international intervention (Tajbakhsh and Chenoy, p. 39). The most obvious example of how Human Security, with its devotion to international action and human rights, is UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions. For example, there were 16 UN peacekeeping missions stationed in different regions around the world in 2011, and 6 of those were authorized to “enforce the peace when necessary” (Behringer, p. 33). From a traditional realist perspective, this would be an infringement of the rights of a sovereign state “harmful to national security interests and even counterproductive” (Peou, p. 234). However, within the Human Security paradigm, human rights take precedence over the interests of national states, and the UN peacekeeping missions provide an example of how this principle manifests in practice.
Conclusion
As one can see, the concept of Human Security emerged as a response to the new developments of the late 20th century. The traditional realist paradigm of international relations, which held up well during the Cold War, relied on the sovereign national states as the primary providers of security. However, the surge of intrastate wars, the increasing role of the UN, and the internationally recognized importance of human rights all over the globe have paved the way for a new understanding of international security. Human Security, for all the broadness of its definition, adheres to two central principles: holding the interests of human beings over those of sovereign states and acting on the international and supranational levels. UN peacekeeping missions illustrate the employment of these principles in practice, even when it means violating the sovereignty of a given state.
References
- Andersen-Rodgers, David, and Kerry Crawford. Human Security: Theory and Action. Rowman and Littlefield, 2018.
- Battersby, Paul, and Joseph M. Siracusa. Globalization and Human Security. Rowman and Littlefield, 2009.
- Behringer, Ronald. The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied US Hegemony. Continuum, 2012.
- Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies: Theories, Methods and Themes. World Scientific Publishing Company, 2014.
- Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou, and Anuradha Chenoy. Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Routledge, 2007.