Você está na página 1de 7

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 Programme'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. Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness, 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. In order for human security to challenge global inequalities, there has to be cooperation between a countrys foreign policy and its approach to global health. However, the interest of the state has continued to overshadow the interest of the people. For instance, Canadas foreign policy, three Ds, has been criticized for emphasizing defense more than development.

Introduction

The concept of human security has emerged in the recent decade to re-balance debates on security away from an exclusive and excessive focus on military security of the state and its institutions, towards the people whom the state serves. (Kofi Annan, 1999) It has great potential in the era of globalization to renew our focus on global threats and challenges to human well being and advancement.

Long-established concepts of national or military security, focusing on the territorial State, are unfit to analyze many factors of risk, threat or sudden change in the daily lives of persons caused by other insecurities such as poverty, environmental hazards, global epidemic diseases, natural disasters, and gender-based violence. All these elements of menace that affect people's rights and dignity, have usually not been considered as risks which can be related to security which the State has an obligation to prevent or improve. Such threats often become invisible in the public debate that generally centers its concerns on national security of the State, or in some cases on public security related only to combating crime or exposed violent conflict.
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 Programme's 1994 Human Development Report[1] 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.[2] Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness,[3] 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.[4] In order for human security to challenge global inequalities, there has to be cooperation between a countrys f oreign policy and its approach to global health. However, the interest of the state has continued to overshadow the interest of the people. For instance, Canadas foreign policy, three Ds, has been criticized for emphasizing defense more than development.[5]

Origins[edit]
The emergence of the human security discourse was the product of a convergence of factors at the end of the Cold War. These challenged the dominance of the neorealist paradigms focus on states, mutually assured destruction and military security and briefly enabled a broader concept of security to emerge. The

increasingly rapid pace of globalisation; the failure of liberal state building through the instruments of the Washington Consensus; the reduced threat of nuclear war between the superpowers, the exponential rise in the spread and consolidation of democratisation and international human rights norms opened a space in which both development and concepts of security could be reconsidered. At the same time the increasing number of internal violent conflicts in Africa, Asia and Europe (Balkans) resulted in concepts of national and international security failing to reflect the challenges of the post Cold War security environment whilst the failure of neoliberal development models to generate growth, particularly in Africa, or to deal with the consequences of complex new threats (such as HIV and climate change) reinforced the sense that international institutions and states were not organised to address such problems in an integrated way. The principal possible indicators of movement toward an individualized conception of security lie in the first place in the evolution of international society's consideration of rights of individuals in the face of potential threats from states. The most obvious foci of analysis here are the UN Charter, the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and its associated covenants (1966), and conventions related to particular crimes (e.g.,genocide) and the rights of particular groups (e.g, women, racial groups, and refugees).[6]

Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want and beyond [edit]


In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats (and perhaps others as a broader discussion might prioritize) would receive adequate global attention and resources. Yet attempts to implement this human security agenda have led to the emergence of two major schools of thought on how to best practice human security '"Freedom from Fear"' and '"Freedom from Want"'. While the UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security requires attention to both freedom from fear and freedom from want, divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these threats.

Freedom from Fear This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities.[9] This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach towards Human Security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy. However, whether such narrow approach can truly serve its purpose in guaranteeing more fruitful results remains to be an issue. For instance, the conflicts in Darfur are often used in questioning the effectiveness of the "Responsibility to Protect, a key component of the Freedom from Fear agenda.

Freedom from Want The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity[1] and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.[10] Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and security goals.

Despite their differences, these two approaches to human security can be considered complementary rather than contradictory.[10] Expressions to this effect include:

Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941, in which "Freedom from Want" is characterized as the third and "Freedom from Fear" is the fourth such fundamental, universal, freedom.

The Government of Japan considers Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be equal in developing Japans foreign policy. Moreover, the UNDP 1994 called for the worlds attention to both agendas.

Surin Pitsuwan, current Secretary-General of ASEAN cites theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Houme to conclude that "human security is the primary purpose of organizing a state in the beginning.".[11] He goes on to observe that the 1994 Human Development Report states that it is "reviving this concept" and suggests that the authors of the 1994 HDR may be alluding to Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech without literally citing that presentation.

Although "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" are the most commonly referred to categories of human security practice, an increasing number of alternative ideas continue to emerge on how to best practice human security. Among them:

G. King and C. Murray.[12] King and Murray try to narrow down the human security definition to one's "expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized poverty". In their definition, the "generalized poverty" means "falling below critical thresholds in any domain of well-being"; and it is in the same article, they give brief review and categories of "Domains of Well-being". This set of defition is similar with "freedom from want" but more concretely focused on some value system.

Caroline Thomas.[13] She regards human security as describing "a condition of existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global.

Roland Paris.[14] He argues that many ways to define "human security" are related with certain set of value and lose the neutral position. So he suggests to take human security as a category of research. As such, he gives a 2*2 matrix to illustrate the security studies field.

Relationship with traditional security[edit]


See also: Political realism Coined in the early 1990s, the term human security has been used by thinkers who have sought to shift the discourse on security away from its traditional state-centered orientation to the protection and advancement of individuals within societies.[17]Human security emerged as a challenge to ideas of traditional security, but human and traditional or national security are not mutually exclusive concepts. It has been argued that, without human security, traditional state security cannot be attained and vice-versa.[18]

Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the philosophy of international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rise of the nation-states. While international relations theory includes many variants of traditional security,

from realism to liberalism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus on the primacy of the nation-state.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

Gender and human security[edit]


Human security focuses on the serious neglect of gender concerns under the traditional security model. Traditional securitys focus on external military threats to the state has meant that the majority of threats women face have been overlooked. By focusing on the individual, the human security model aims to address the security concerns of both women and men equally. Women are often victims of violence and conflict: they form the majority of civilian deaths; the majority of refugees; and, are often the victims of cruel and degrading practices, such as rape.[34] Women's security is also threatened by unequal access to resources, services and opportunities.[34] Women's rights are neglected especially in the Middle East and Southeast Asian regions where customary practices are still prevalent. Although there are different opinions on the issue of customary practices, it infringes upon human security's notion where women and men are innated with equal human rights. Attempts to eradicate such violent customary practices requires political and legal approaches where human security in relation to gender should be brought up as the main source of assertion. Such cruel customary practices as honor killing, burning brides and widows, child marriage are still in existence because of women's vulnerability in economic independence and security. Human security in relationship to gender tries to overthrow such traditional pracitices that are incompatible to the rights of women. Also human security seeks to empower women, through education, participation and access, as gender equality is seen as a necessary precondition for peace, security and a prosperous society.[34]

What is 'human security'?


Human security is the combination of threats associated with war, genocide, and the displacement of populations. At a minimum, human security means freedom from violence and from the fear of violence.

How does human security differ from national security?


human security is concerned with the security of individuals.

Unlike traditional concepts of security, which focus on defending borders from external military threats, Human security and national security should beand often aremutually reinforcing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Indeed, far more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies during the last 100 years.

When did the concept of human security come to prominence?


The United Nations Development Programme first drew global attention to the concept in its 1994Human Development Report (HDR).The reports broad definition of human security encompasses everything that constitutes freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Which threats are considered human security issues?


All proponents of human security agree that the individual should be the focus of security. However, consensus breaks down over exactly which threats to the individual should be addressed as human security issues. Supporters of the narrow definition of human security argue for a focus on violent threats to individuals and communities. Supporters of the broad definition outlined in the 1994 HDR argue that hunger, disease, pollution, affronts to human dignity, threats to livelihoods, and other harms in addition to violence should all be considered human security issues. The two approaches are people-centred and are complementary rather than contradictory.

Which definition of human security does the Human Security Report Project (HSRP) work with?
We work with the narrow definition, which takes violence to be the main indicator of human insecurity. Our reasons for adopting the narrow definition of human security are largely pragmatic. As there are already several reports examining trends in global poverty, disease, and other indicators of human insecurity covered by the broad definition, there would be little point in duplicating their analyses. Moreover, it is necessary to isolate the trends in organized violence from the trends in poverty, for example, in order to analyze the relationship between the two threats.

What are the policy implications of human security?


Focusing on the individual has important implications for policy. Traditional security policy emphasizes military means for reducing the risks of war and for prevailing if deterrence fails. Human securitys proponents, while not eschewing the use of force, have focused on non-coercive approaches. These range from preventive diplomacy and conflict management, to addressing the root causes of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.

What is 'human security'?


Human security is the combination of threats associated with war, genocide, and the displacement of populations. At a minimum, human security means freedom from violence and from the fear of violence.

How does human security differ from national security?


human security is concerned with the security of individuals.

Unlike traditional concepts of security, which focus on defending borders from external military threats, Human security and national security should beand often aremutually reinforcing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Indeed, far more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies during the last 100 years.

When did the concept of human security come to prominence?


The United Nations Development Programme first drew global attention to the concept in its 1994Human Development Report (HDR).The reports broad definition of human security encompasses everything that constitutes freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Which threats are considered human security issues?


All proponents of human security agree that the individual should be the focus of security. However, consensus breaks down over exactly which threats to the individual should be addressed as human security issues. Supporters of the narrow definition of human security argue for a focus on violent threats to individuals and communities. Supporters of the broad definition outlined in the 1994 HDR argue that hunger, disease, pollution, affronts to human dignity, threats to livelihoods, and other harms in addition to violence should all be considered human security issues. The two approaches are people-centred and are complementary rather than contradictory.

Which definition of human security does the Human Security Report Project (HSRP) work with?
We work with the narrow definition, which takes violence to be the main indicator of human insecurity. Our reasons for adopting the narrow definition of human security are largely pragmatic. As there are already several reports examining trends in global poverty, disease, and other indicators of human insecurity covered by the broad definition, there would be little point in duplicating their analyses. Moreover, it is necessary to isolate the trends in organized violence from the trends in poverty, for example, in order to analyze the relationship between the two threats.

What are the policy implications of human security?


Focusing on the individual has important implications for policy. Traditional security policy emphasizes military means for reducing the risks of war and for prevailing if deterrence fails. Human securitys proponents, while not eschewing the use of force, have focused on non-coercive approaches. These range from preventive diplomacy and conflict management, to addressing the root causes of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.

Você também pode gostar