Human security
Introduction
In the past, the idea of security mainly meant protecting a country from war and
military attacks. This was called national security, and it focused on the
safety of the state, not the people.
But in the 1990s, thinkers and global organisations realised that people face
many other threats besides war—like poverty, hunger, disease, and natural
disasters. This gave rise to the idea of human security, which puts the
individual person at the centre of security.
The concept became widely known after the 1994 Human Development
Report published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
This report said that real security means freedom from both fear and want,
and that protecting people’s lives and dignity is as important as protecting a
country’s borders.
Human security is about security for the people, rather than for the states and
the government. A secure states fosters stability, development and peace,
enabling people to live without fear and reach their potential
In the traditional study of global politics, the main focus of security was the
state. This approach, known as realism, believed that states must protect
themselves from external military threats. Security meant having a strong army,
powerful alliances, and protection of national borders
.
However, after the Cold War, the nature of threats changed. Instead of wars
between countries, the world started seeing more internal conflicts, civil
wars, ethnic violence, refugee crises, poverty, pandemics, and
environmental disasters. These issues cross borders and affect people
directly, not just states.
In this changing global context, scholars and international organisations began
to argue that the old definition of security was no longer enough. The focus had
to shift from state security to people’s security.
It said that the goal of security should be to ensure freedom from fear
(violence and war) and freedom from want (poverty, hunger, and disease).
Human security emerged as a global political idea that challenged the narrow,
military-based view of security and brought attention to human rights,
development, and environmental protection.
1982 Palme Commission (Sweden) introduced "common security"—arguing
that true security must include economic and social development.
1986 UN Conference on Disarmament and Development discussed reducing
military spending in favour of human development.
Key Aspects of Human Security
The 1994 Human Development Report by the UNDP introduced seven key
dimensions of human security. These reflect the idea that threats to individuals
arise not only from violence but also from economic hardship, disease, and
environmental harm. Each of these aspects is deeply relevant in global politics,
where non-traditional threats now cross national borders and require collective
responses.
. Economic Security
This refers to ensuring a basic income for all individuals, either through
employment or social protection.
Relevance in global politics: Economic insecurity, driven by global
recessions, inequality, or displacement, leads to instability and unrest,
especially in the Global South.
. Food Security
It means reliable access to sufficient and nutritious food.
Relevance in global politics: Global food shortages, price shocks, and
export bans can cause riots, migration, and famine. Climate change
further threatens agricultural production.
. Health Security
Ensures protection from diseases and access to healthcare services.
Relevance in global politics: The COVID-19 pandemic showed how
health insecurity spreads across borders, overwhelming even powerful
states and demanding coordinated international action.
. Environmental Security
Focuses on protecting individuals from environmental degradation,
natural disasters, and the effects of climate change.
Relevance in global politics: Issues like rising sea levels,
desertification, and resource scarcity are major causes of conflict and
displacement, especially in vulnerable regions.
. Personal Security
Involves protection from physical violence, whether caused by the
state (e.g., police brutality), non-state actors (e.g., terrorists), or
domestic abuse.
Relevance in global politics: High rates of gender-based violence,
terrorism, and civilian casualties in civil wars raise urgent questions
about the responsibility to protect.
. Community Security
Aims to safeguard people from the breakdown of traditional
.
relationships and identity-based violence.
Relevance in global politics: Ethnic cleansing, religious persecution,
and cultural suppression—such as in Myanmar or Xinjiang—pose
serious threats to peaceful coexistence.
. Political Security
Ensures that people live under governments that respect their civil and
political rights.
Relevance in global politics: Authoritarian regimes, digital surveillance,
and repression of dissent (e.g., in Iran or Belarus) demonstrate that
political insecurity is a global concern.
These seven dimensions demonstrate that security must be holistic,
addressing both violent and structural threats. In global politics, they reflect a
shift from state-centric approaches to a broader, human-centric vision of
safety and well-being.
Post Cold War era
In the post-cold war era, the importance given to people's security has grown
in salience. One reason for this is the rising incidence of civil wars and intra-
state conflicts involving huge loss of life, ethnic
cleansing, displacement of people. Also the impact of globalization in
spreading transnational dangers such as terrorism and pandemics influenced
the concept of human security
Freedom from Fear vs. Freedom from Want
Freedom from fear (Canada’s approach): focuses on reducing violence,
protecting human rights, banning landmines, addressing war crimes.
Freedom from want (Japan’s approach): focuses on reducing poverty,
ensuring food, health, education, and sustainable development.
Also note: Both are interlinked—poverty often leads to conflict, and violence
worsens poverty.
Human Security and the Expansion of Security in Global Politics
How Human Security Has Widened the Concept of Security in Global
Politics
The concept of human security has transformed how security is understood
and practiced in global politics. Traditionally focused on military threats to state
sovereignty, the scope of security has expanded to include the protection of
individuals from a wide range of non-military challenges. Human security
redefines the referent, the nature of threats, and the tools used to address
them. Below are the key dimensions of how this concept has widened the
security discourse:
1. From State-Centric to People-Centric Security
Human security shifts the focus from the state to the individual. It argues that a
secure state does not guarantee secure citizens and that true security must
protect people from violence, fear, and deprivation in their everyday lives.
2. Inclusion of Non-Military Threats
The traditional view of security emphasized war and military defense. Human
security broadens this to include threats like poverty, hunger, disease, natural
disasters, environmental degradation, and social inequality—issues that impact
daily human survival.
3. Impact of Globalization
Global interconnectedness has increased transnational threats such as
pandemics, terrorism, and climate change. Human security reflects the need
for global cooperation in addressing challenges that no single state can handle
alone.
4. Influence on International Norms and Institutions
Human security has led to new global norms and institutions that prioritize
civilian protection—such as the International Criminal Court, humanitarian
interventions, and treaties banning landmines. It also inspired the Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
5. Integrating Development and Security
Human security bridges security and development, recognizing that economic
deprivation and inequality can be root causes of conflict. It promotes “freedom
from fear” and “freedom from want” as equally important for sustainable peace.
Challenges in Promoting Human Security
Despite its growing relevance, the implementation of human security faces
several challenges at both national and international levels.
1. State Resistance and Sovereignty Concerns
Many states—especially in the Global South—view human security as a
potential threat to national sovereignty. Governments often resist international
involvement in what they consider internal affairs, particularly in cases of
humanitarian intervention.
2. Limited Resources and Political Will
Human security requires significant investment in health, education,
development, and peacebuilding. However, global spending continues to
prioritize military budgets over human development. For example, military
spending still vastly outweighs aid for health or poverty reduction.
3. Coordination Among Actors
Human security involves a wide range of actors, including states, NGOs, UN
agencies, and local communities. Coordinating efforts across these diverse
bodies remains a complex task, often resulting in fragmented or ineffective
responses.
Criticisms of the Human Security Approach
Despite its appeal, the concept of human security faces key criticisms.
Firstly, it is often seen as too broad and vague. By including almost every threat
to human well-being—from war to poverty to disease—critics argue that it
becomes difficult to define priorities or create clear policies. Secondly, some
scholars believe it undermines the role of the state, which remains central to
providing law, order, and protection. Lastly, there are concerns that human
security promotes unrealistic expectations, especially in fragile states where
delivering basic services is already a challenge.
Conclusion
The concept of human security has fundamentally reshaped the way security is
understood in global politics. By shifting the focus from state-centric protection
to individual well-being, it has broadened the scope of security to include
economic, environmental, health, and human rights concerns. In doing so, it
responds more effectively to the complex, interconnected threats of the 21st
century. While challenges such as state resistance, coordination difficulties,
and limited resources persist—and some critics question its practicality—the
human security framework remains a vital and evolving approach. It highlights
the need for a more inclusive, people-centered model of global governance
that prioritizes not only the absence of war but also the presence of dignity,
development, and justice for all.
