The Concept of Human Security

Question:

Does threat or use of force lead to human security and state security?
 

The vast interdisciplinary relation of the subject International relations allows a proper connection to the political world and mostly centering on human security relations and state security. Human and state security is a necessary field to venture to enhance a peaceful living which in turn this will enable economic and political growth in a state. The role of international relation is to ensure there is a perfect coordination between and among different countries. This paper is going to emulate and put forward the issues related to if using force and threat can at any instance help in solving the problems and stabilizing the state and human security.

In the year 1994, the idea of human security emerged, during the past period it has received critics when presenting the lack of revealing policy due to its flexible definition. Focusing on a violent threat to persons, with the aim of addressing economic, health, environmental not forgetting food and political issues in separate incidents. The state is a one way perspective as one of the part actors and the same even the problem by itself. Being regarded as the humanitarian in the watch.(UNDP,1994).When threats or force is impounded in action to allow an individual state or groups of a given state to take in the action, this is taken positively and which sets the state to enhance its security measures in the states previous game laws.

The major work about the concept of the human security may be in comparison with the anti-states bias. The act of using force is an idea lies in the core concept that people should bear protection from violent threats which can be followed back in the years in the twentieth century. When trying to find the actual cause and roots, the activities have a significant resurface in non-governmental organizations such as the International Committee, which is an affiliate of the Red Cross (Krause,2007).

To emphasize the concept has also been used in the last two decades. Which it has an insight in many ways to unite diverse states, NGOs and agencies. Security is a central section in international relations this is because some concepts which have general features of realism in international relations. The realism part of it creates emphasis in the constraints included on politics by nature of human beings, at a greater factor whom they might have a consideration of being egoist while featuring the absence of the international government. (McCormack, 2011). In so doing a conflict will be created by the paradigm of international relations. In full appraisal, the principal actors are the states, t which power to protect and security becomes an issue. Thus, the subject international relations comes in to create an overall solution by bringing a critical solution which will make it easy to enhance understanding across a border in many countries in the continent and beyond. 

In a simple definition about International Relations, human security will combine threats associated with war or rather to another consideration genocide and displacement of populations. In a more general term human security can be defined or coined to be the protection of human from violence and away from the fear of violence. (UNTFSH, 2009). The difference in the two concepts between human security and state security comes when we view randomly from the perspective of focusing on the borders where the services were offering. Thus state expands the defense from external military threats, in a hostile situation where human security is concerned with the safety of an individual. According to authors in a 1994 report on human development, an exploration was established on the new concept of human security. They at first centered their concept to people who quickly gained popularity and attention to human rights associated groups, and individual human was considered a principal object of concern.

Human Security and State Security

Human security is subdivided and listed into seven components for easy clarifications. Some of the components include food, health, environmental, community security. The most accepted definition and widely used of human security are where human safety is, in general, entailing the freedom from pervasive threats to individuals right, safety and lives. (CHS, 2003).  When this topic became a center of focus, it later triggered a cry for international attention. In the times of the post-cold war, a long series of internal conflicts had made away with millions of lives of individuals in most regions included Asia and Africa for example. Most of the efforts to restore the trauma and the lost hope in genocide, ethnic cleansing tried failed. With this information at hand, a large refuge flowed and insisted for a coordination which will deliver an international response.

The age of great communication played a role in deploying the information from a shrinking global village, where the government had lost touch with due to non-major interaction to the entire nation was reconnected. The images of the brutal and ongoing suffering of human in the regions triggered a different chapter of humanitarian to take the pressure off the citizen, which led to a humanitarian imperative. In human security, humanitarian is considered a major key player to ensure an individual security unlike when we refer the same to state security. When the concept of threats is incorporated, it creates a partial awareness to the subconscious legitimacy in influencing and preparing for any incident to occur.

An impression created by the states inauguration and beyond it has acquired a formal acceptance of the territory of the state as an essential pre-acquired condition to provide security for her citizens. The other bit of the concept of sovereignty on its own is reshaped which to a way that it allows a trans-national also global management of the most crucial issue of human security through the military, or rather a difference path of non-military and humanitarian innervations. (Cheeseman, 2005).

According to a report of the international commission on intervention and state security, most of the responsibility to safeguard is best when it represents a tendency for it to connect explicitly human safety and the state being the sole base provide for the security to the states and human security.  In a significant statement to link the state sovereignty to the protection of her citizens, brings in the concept of responsibility, this, in turn, led to it later developing into another crucial concept which entails a shift in a state sovereignty. Gathering information from most theoretical backgrounds and major groups which bring clarity. The state and human security are also connected in which the interrelations leads to the perfect connection between the two fields.

The state being at the central has above all established a practical rationale, where they are no reliable options that can be having take in place of the state’s organizational role. On the other hand despite the pragmatic motivation given, there are at least two sets of reasons. The first one being the theoretical basics but having an exact outcome. (ICISS, 2011). The whole idea is in connection to states laying a current framework of democratic legitimacy and presentation with which the government’s citizens can access control over major institutions. An example of the system being the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, this at a greater extent provides security to the citizens.

The Role of International Relations

Most individuals and organizations claim that the state is responsible for the protection of its citizen is mostly expressed in the responsibility to protect its citizen. When this is not carefully looking into it overlooks the broad definition of responsibility which should be attached to the political and domestic concept of security which directly has a link to an acquisition and legal representations of organizations and institutions by the state.  In a different perspective a country that protects its citizens is easily perceived to be legitimate.

By acquiring threats, a state of security can be enhancing in individuals, and this proves the concept that when a threat or force is to use security leads to an establishment. The second set of a state is the practical rationale; one case is to consider weak states which are the main reason for having instability and conflicts not forgetting threats to its individuals. To make a clarification on that, a shred of evidence that most violence experienced by individuals comes from non-states parties. Partially bringing in the aspect of posing a challenge where the image of the state becomes a threat to its citizens.

Adequately emphasizing to the connection between institutions considered weak and human security in a UN report in 2004. The report barely supported the importance of preventing the reverse erosion in the state’s capacity, in turn coming out to a crucial point for meeting for almost every class of threat. The idea can be to have a direct connection to the management of security matters not leaving out internal wars unattended aspect. Sometimes it can be assumed that there is no relationship between state and national security, in its domestic base of argument, there is a provision of narrow explanation over it.

Thus, little can be understood on human security. To solve the question to demonstrate a clear answer for whether there is a strong positive link between the strength of a state to the respect of human rights in countries. In the investigation the primary soul aspect reflected is the source of threat to the citizens or the security provider, production of evidence will help in illustration as a second option. The tendency to have human rights abused happens to weak states as compared to solidly established ones, hence placing a challenge in the entire common assumption in human rights field that the first abuse is the state itself. 

In another hand trying, to find a weak institutional capacity found in the system of a country. As a threat to human security has a strict connection with the possible emergence of actors outside the States territory who will exert its sovereignty, this will as well weaken the boundaries of aa country if not controlled it can lead to connections between external and internal threats. A perfect example where a weak boundary resulted in a vast and unexpected problem is the civil war in Congo in 1996 -1999. The ineffectiveness of the borders created a conflict contact from Rwanda and Burundi. 

The Realist Perspective in International Relations

The actual connection between human security and state security is a significant open lead, which should promote the prioritization of building and stabilize the country. It is in believing that state building is a complicated process which requires strings on non-simple construction with enough institutional apparatus. With a goal in mind to foster legitimacy which is an essential force for stability, mostly to the developing countries. The necessity to create strong bonds between stat and the general society.

In a major case study, in Africa there exist some of the world most places where it is at a risk of facing with human security problems. From a narrow perspective, the nature of the threats are based on standard core and which are ethnic, political, religious and economic reasons as causes. Though this is not considered to be in the category of the Westphalia scheme, rather it is considered wars across states. In the aspect of viewing human security and who is responsible for providing it gives ample room for international studies to come in and solve most of the theoretical concepts put forward by scholars to go with a standard solution in enabling proper security is ensured to the state and to the citizens too. An approach can be given to this where theoretically is unexceptionable, but to another extent Africa’s forty-two percent has the world’s fatalities from organized violence and eighty-3 percent who are non-state.

To weight and give consideration, a partial denial to be considered in the prejudice substantially suggests that strengthening most state institutions in the areas of Africa will acquire a positive effect on human security. The possibilities to stabilize most authorities in the countries, sometimes will not be functional rather a national identity will and bring about the ethnic-sectional fragmentation. The actual solution is dependent on how to convince a state. Keeping in mind that most countries are no longer unitary which will make it hard for monolithic institutions to provide, besides a traditional reliance in national identity. To be used as a way of consensus. In a different context the contemporary also multifaceted definition, the term state can say as a bone structure in the political body or the set of administrative institutions that claim a command which is legitimate over a contiguous territory.

On the other hand to counter see the management of a monopoly where force is may be the ultimate high centralization in a weak and conflict-stricken states. The underlying legitimacy is in a Weberian way; it is in recognition that a variety of structures of decentralized with a context-specific of the population representation on the local and religion including the ethnic aspect. Building the state or stabilizing the country is a way to create and put into emphasizing the source of human security, which should be at a helping hand by democratization. In countries which are considered weak, the establishment of national security can be a challenge to come up with a framework of state to improve safety which will have to cope up with informal presence, with attributes to local powers which are more trusted normally than the central authorities. Hence the urge to acquire legitimacy through decentralization of most powers of the government body, mobilization about the civil society, when establishing rules to govern the perfect relationship between its citizens and the state at large.

The Seven Components of Human Security

The nature of the threats will determine the actual conflict in place, and this also changes over time, making the state remain the sole provider of security in the massive lead. This provision should be flexible to allow mutual benefit. With the inevitability of the state acquiring the monopoly for playing a significant role in giving out security to its citizens, therefore, instead of demonizing the central concept of the national security, with the basis where it is not clear. Thus, its role should change and be steered towards the historical equivalence. In general, the domestic meaning should be able to provide law and order.  

Conclusion

To conclude, the extent to which the security and the stability of the state in central institutions. All comes with a guarantee for the safety of its citizen. The primary purpose being the human security, in general, will ensure the provision and managing all the threats at hand to come up with a lasting solution due to the dynamic manner of how the threats are occurring will lead to the state lacking vital services in maintaining human security. The whole idea in the contextual diversity the source of the threat will have a significant impact on the outcome. International relations comes in to evaluate the actual needs of the states to learn how to take in threats from the outside the states boundaries as a confidential and boost its responsible department. When this is the doing in fully the security of the citizens will be ensured.  

References

Boot, M. (2000) ‘Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping’, Foreign Affairs, 79 (2): 143-148.

Bratton, M. and Chang, E.C.C. (2006) ‘State Building and Democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa :Forwards, Backwards, or Together?’, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (9): 1059-1083.

Chappuis, F. (2011) ‘Human security and security sector reform: conceptual convergences in theory and practice’, in Benedek, W., Kettemann, M. C., Mostl, M. (eds) Mainstreaming Human Security in Peace Operations and Crisis Management, Abingdon: Rouledge. 99-122.

Cheeseman, G. (2005) ‘Military Force(s) and In/security’, in Booth, K. (ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. 63-87.

Commission on Human Security (CHS) (2003), Human Security Now, New York: CHS.

Deng, F. M. (1995) ‘Frontiers of Sovereignty: A Framework of Protection, Assistance, and Development for the Internally Displaced’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 8 (2): 249-286.

Englehart, N. A. (2009) ‘State Capacity, State Failure, and Human Rights’, Journal of Peace Research, 46 (2):163-180.

Hentz, J.J. (2010) ‘National and Human Security in Sub-Sahara Africa’, Orbis, 54 (4): 630-643.

High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (HlPTCC) (2004), A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, New York: United Nations.

Human Security Report Project (HSRP) (2012), Human Security Report 2012: Sexual Violence, Education, and War: Beyond the Mainstream Narrative, Vancouver: Human Security Press.

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001), The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre

King, G. and Murray, C.G.L. (2001-2002) ‘Rethinking Human Security’, Political Science Quarterly, 116 (4): 585-610.

Krause, K. (2007) ‘Towards a Practical Human Security Agenda’, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, Policy Paper N. 26.

Liotta, P.H. and Owen, T. (2006) ‘Why Human Security?’, The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 7 (1): 37-54.

Luckham, R., Goetz, A.M., and Kaldor, M. (2003) ‘Democratic Institutions and Democratic politics’,  in Bastian, S. and Luckham, R. (eds) Can Democracy Be Designed?, London: Zed Books, 14-51.

McCormack, T. (2011)  ‘The limits to emancipation in the human security framework’, in Chandler, D. and Hynek N. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Human Security, London: Routledge, 99-113.

Menocal, A.R. (2011)  ‘State Building for Peace: a new paradigm for international engagement in post-conflict fragile states?’, Third World Quarterly, 32 (10): 1715–1736.

Olukoshi, A. (1999)  ‘State, Conflict and Democracy in Africa: The Complex Process of Renewal’, in Joseph, R. (ed.) State, Conflict and Democracy in Africa, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 451-465.