The renewed relevance of people-centred security approaches
Paper presented at the conference ‘Critical World Issues’, held at Initiatives of
Change, March 10-14, 2011, Caux, Switzerland
Georg Frerks1
In 1994 the UNDP launched the notion of ‘human security’ in its World Development
Report. The concept was welcomed, but also criticised due to its lack of
operationalisation and vagueness. The War on Terror pushed it again somewhat to
the background with its emphasis on coercive approaches and its centrality of state
or homeland security. However, the course of events in several ‘theatres of war’ such
as Afghanistan and Iraq, the frequent misconceptions of terrorism, as well as the
recent developments in Tunesia and Egypt compel us to take a fresh look at peoplecentred approaches to security and peace. In this paper I will sketch the origins and
development of the human security approach, its strengths and weaknesses, and will
elaborate on the renewed relevance of these at the present juncture.
The setting of contemporary conflict
Contemporary armed conflicts are rarely anymore an international confrontation
between two state actors with their armies as in most ‘classical’ wars, but are in a
majority of cases ‘intrastate’ wars. This implies that the causes of those wars are
primarily due to problems emanating from the polity or society at stake itself. Misrule,
identity-based state patronage, exclusion, mismanagement of scarce natural
resources, underdevelopment, violations of human rights are only some of the
problematic aspects of state-society relations and prevailing forms of governance
propelling conflict in many parts of the world.
The relative importance of military aspects and arms in the explanation of Cold War
rivalry has given way to an emphasis on dynamic historical, political, socio-economic
and environmental factors and processes. Hence, contemporary conflict is seen as a
multi-causal, multi-dimensional, multi-level and multi-actor affair that needs to be
addressed by multiple approaches at different tracks simultaneously. It defies simple
definitions and singular approaches. Consequently, the present challenges are less
amenable to ‘simple’ remedial action by classical military or state-centred
instruments. As a consequence of these trends, current approaches to conflict and
conflict resolution now emphasise a broader notion of ‘human security’ as key to
understanding and action. In a more constructivist, post-modern fashion conflict is
considered to be a product of dynamic historical and social processes. Likewise, the
provision of security is not anymore considered to be the exclusive prerogative of
policymakers, diplomats and military specialists in what has been called the domain
of ‘high politics’. In contrast, human security approaches are premised on the idea of
empowerment and responsibility at all levels of society and require the initiatives of a
1
Georg Frerks is professor of Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management at Utrecht University and professor
of Disaster Studies at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. This paper is partly derived from Frerks and
Klein Goldewijk (2007) and Frerks (2008)
1
variety of governmental and non-governmental actors and organisations. The
introduction of the human security notion in the 1990s has been emblematic for those
changes. In this article I shall discuss the history of the concept, but also some
counter-tendencies that it has faced. The human security debate was especially
sidelined by the forceful War-on-Terror discourse of the last decade. Yet, I want to
assert in this paper that under the present circumstances, including the recent events
in Northern Africa and the Middle East, the concept has gained a renewed relevance.
The introduction of the notion of Human Security in the 1990s
Though the founders of the United Nations (UN) have arguably always given “equal
weight to territories and people” and to both ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from
want’, after World War II the international community became largely obsessed with
territorial and state security to the detriment of people’s security (UNDP 1994: 24). It
took four decades, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union,
before the emphasis could shift back to a broader concept of ‘human’ security again,
something that happened largely thanks to the Human Development Report 1994
that catapulted the notion of human security in public, academic and policy discourse.
The following quotes from the report give the gist of the argument:
“The concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security
of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in
foreign policy or as global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust. It
has related more to nation-states than to people [….] Forgotten were the
legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.
For many of them, security symbolised protection from the threat of disease,
hunger, employment, crime, social conflict, political repression and
environmental hazards” (UNDP 1994:22).
“For most people today a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about
daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Job security,
income security, health security, environmental security, security from crime –
these are the emerging concerns of human security all over the world” (UNDP
1994:22).
“In the final analysis, human security is a child who did not die, a disease that
did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode
into violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a
concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life and dignity” (UNDP
1994:22).
As clearly indicated in those quotes from the Human Development Report 1994, in
the post-Cold War period, people became increasingly aware of the importance of
completely other threats to human life than those in the realm of violent conflict only.
Other studies and report show a similar trend. The UN Secretary General High Level
Panel on Global Threats, Challenges and Change (2004), for example, mentions
crime, poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation as serious security
threats, apart from interstate and intrastate conflict, terrorism and nuclear,
radiological, chemical and biological weapons. The Worldwatch Institute’s State of
the World Report (2005) talks about ‘problems without passports’, such as endemic
poverty, growing inequality and unemployment, international crime, population
2
movements, recurring natural disasters, ecosystem breakdown, new and resurgent
communicable diseases. It emphasises that a military approach to the problems
alone is inadequate and probably counterproductive.
On a more analytical note the Human Development Report observes that the concept
of human security must focus on four of its essential characteristics: First, “human
security is a universal concern. It is relevant to people everywhere, in rich nations
and poor. …. Their intensity may differ from one part of the world to another, but all
these threats to human security are real and growing.” Second, “the components of
human security are interdependent. …. [Most hazards] are no longer isolated events,
confined within national borders. Their consequences travel the globe.” Third,
“human security is easier to ensure through early prevention than later intervention. It
is less costly to meet these threats upstream than downstream.” Fourth, “human
security is people-centred. It is concerned with how people live and breathe in a
society, how freely they exercise their many choices, how much access they have to
market and social opportunities – and whether they live in conflict or in peace”
(UNDP 1994: 22-23).
Human security not only means safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease
and repression, but also must include protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions
in the pattern of daily life. The concept has led to a shift from security through
armament to security through sustainable human development. The report notes that
the loss of human security can be a slow, silent process or an abrupt, ‘loud’
emergency and be human-made due to wrong policy choices or stem from the forces
of nature, or – as is often the case – be a combination of both. The report also
elaborates on the relationship between sustainable human development and human
security. Human development is fundamental to reaching human security and to
reducing different types of vulnerability, while a lack of human security conversely
undermines human development (UNDP 1994: 23-24).
Though not using the terms explicitly, the Human Development Report emphasises
people’s agency and adopts an empowering perspective:
“Ensuring human security does not mean taking away from people the
responsibility and opportunity for mastering their lives. …. The concept of
human security stresses that people should be able to take care of
themselves: all people should have the opportunity to meet their most
essential needs and to earn their own living” (1994: 24).
The report further asserts that human security is not a defensive concept that can be
brought about by force. On the contrary, it is participatory and integrative, and
embedded in a notion of solidarity among people (1994: 24).
In a perceptive overview chapter Hough (2004: 2-20) argues that in the discourse on
human security we have seen a ‘widening’ and ‘deepening’ of the erstwhile ‘narrow’
conception of security. ‘Widening’ refers to acknowledging that other issues than
external military threats are endangering security. This is dealing with the question of
what constitutes the threat.
A relevant second question refers to what is threatened by those threats. Some
analysts maintain that the object of the threat still needs to be the state. This ‘limited’
3
form of widening could arguably be subsumed under the logic of realist thinking that
tends to put the state and its interests as the referent object. A more ‘profound’ form
of widening asserts that an issue can be a security risk, even though it does not
threaten the state. Here the referent object can include communities or groups within
the state, or simply ‘people’ or even individuals. This position is related to the
Copenhagen School and the work of Buzan and others (1998) and their work on
securitisation that I shall briefly discuss below.
A third question relates to who is the ‘securitising actor’ that decides on whether and
how the issue is acted on. This is done through political discourse: “If by means of an
argument about the priority and urgency of an existential threat the securitising actor
has managed to break free of procedures or rules he or she should otherwise be
bound by, we are witnessing an act of securitisation” (Buzan et al. 1998: 25, quoted
in Hough 2004: 17). ‘Deepening’ means, that not only sub-state groups and the
individual people that comprise these groups are involved as the referent object, but
also that these, as securitising actors, can and do act in response to the security
threat at hand. This implies a constructivist understanding of security: “If people, be
they government ministers or private individuals, perceive an issue to threaten their
lives in some way and respond politically to this, then that issue should be deemed to
be a security issue” (Hough 2004: 9). In our view, Hough concludes correctly that the
human security approach is both a ‘widener’ and ‘deepener’ of the traditional security
conception.
These conceptual developments in the field of human security have pushed into
relative insignificance some of the more traditional notions, dogmas and theories in
international relations, development studies and military science, while giving birth to
a new, more encompassing discourse on security. Particularly in the field of policy
practice, traditional instruments of peacemaking and conflict resolution such as those
embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, were felt to be unsuitable to deal with
contemporary conflict, as those instruments were largely focused on conventional
interstate wars and could not easily be applied to the intrastate conflicts that
comprise more than ninety-five per cent of all cases at present (Human Development
Centre 2005: viii).
Further conceptual and institutional developments
The conceptualisation of human security as introduced by the UNDP was generally
felt to encapsulate the different new challenges to security, including environmental
and sustainability concerns (this was referred to above as ‘widening’ security). This
has led to further academic and public debates on the nature of contemporary
security, while at the level of multilateral policy a number of salient commissions were
established that published influential reports related to the subject matter. One of the
issues discussed was the shift away from state to human security or more precisely
the relationship between the two. The new thinking also stimulated changes in the
field of policy practice by engendering more comprehensive and ‘enlightened’
attempts to deal with the issue of security than the conventional military-strategic
approaches had done so far, whereby development cooperation was accorded a
more central role. By consequence, it was increasingly recognised that the provision
of human security required a more active role of development, relief and peacebuilding agencies. This has opened up the possibility for these agencies and other
‘non-traditional’ actors, such as local civil society organisations, women groups and
4
international NGOs, to contribute to security and peace (this was referred to above as
‘deepening’ security). The approaches followed by these actors often aim for what is
called conflict transformation: changing unjust and inequitable societal relationships
that have led to patterns of exclusion and feelings of grievance. The human security
notion clearly encompassed all societal levels, from the individual and local to the
global. It advocated that peace cannot be imposed top-down, but has to grow and be
sustained bottom-up as well. It drove home that contemporary conflict is a multicausal, multi-dimensional, multi-level and multi-actor affair that has multiple
consequences and needs to be addressed by multiple approaches at multiple tracks
simultaneously to be resolved successfully.
What has remained somewhat implicit in the original discourse of the UNDP was that
the state itself is often at the root of human insecurity. The Human Development
Report 1994 seems to be aware of this, but does not put it centre stage. In its section
on political security it describes in fairly veiled terms how political ‘unrest’ commonly
results in military intervention and “the police can also be used as agents of
repression” (1994: 32-33). In later debates, however, the crucial role of the state in
propelling insecurity in many parts of the world has gained more prominence. As
stated by Thakur and Newman, “For many indeed a still greater threat may come
from their own state itself, rather than from an ‘external’ adversary” (2004: 2).
Around 2001 and in the immediate years that followed, there was a new impulse in
the debate on human security when Canada and Japan provided global leadership
for promoting human security on the global agenda. In this process human security
became associated with the ‘responsibility to protect’, a concept that was advanced
by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in
its report of 2001. The ICISS stresses that the responsibility to protect flows from
obligations inherent in state sovereignty, but that there also exist international
obligations, such as those embodied in article 24 of the UN Charter or in
international humanitarian law, covenants, treaties and so on. Hence, it adopts the
following as a principle: “Where a population is suffering serious harm as a result
from internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question
is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the
responsibility to protect” (2001: xi). One may derive from this that the ICISS has
subordinated state sovereignty, and implicitly state security, to considerations of
human security.
The Commission on Human Security (CHS), co-chaired by Sadako Ogata, the
former United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, and Amartya Sen, Nobel
Laureate in economics, published its report Human Security Now in 2003. The CHS
elaborates on some distinctive features of human security, including the intricate
relation between state and human security. Due to the growing linkages and rapid
transmission of danger in the contemporary world, they observe a need to have a
stronger and more integrated response. Though the state remains in their view ‘the
fundamental purveyor of security’, it has often failed or even become a threat to its
own people. In principle, according to the CHS, there does not need to be a
contradiction between state and human security and they must rather complement
one another. Therefore, people’s and the state’s security need to be linked. In this
sense, security and peace, rights and development are closely interconnected. Next
to protecting freedoms, human security means “creating political, social,
5
environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people
the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity” (2003: 4). This includes
developing people’s capabilities and participation in making choices and carrying
out action. Empowerment strategies should help people developing their resilience
to difficult situations. Human security approaches should therefore first of all build
upon the efforts and capabilities of those directly affected (2003: 11-12).
Summing up, human security as conceived by the CHS complements state security
in four major aspects: it concerns the individual, the community and the society
rather than the state; it includes menaces that have not always been classified as
threats to state security; it includes actors beyond the state alone; and it refers not
only to protecting but also to empowering people. The link to the deepening and
widening debate in academia referred to above is obvious. The breadth of human
security is salient: it deals with violent conflict and deprivation in all its forms and
recognises the inter-linkage between peace and development or the lack thereof.
Similarly human rights and human security are seen as mutually reinforcing by the
CHS (2003: 10).
Since the mid-1990s the notion of human security has been adopted by a great
variety of states, regional and international organisations, although it was initially
met with reservations and suspicions from the G-77 out of fear that taking on the
concept would put pressures on state sovereignty. This is reminiscent of debates
surrounding ‘humanitarian intervention’ which has often been resisted or vetoed,
because it was considered an infringement of the principles of national sovereignty
and non-interference in domestic affairs (Daudelin 2004). Whether this resistance is
due to a fear of being exposed or whether such reluctance is grounded on
justifiable concerns, is a hotly debated and contested issue. In any case, there is a
growing consensus that in particular circumstances a right or obligation to intervene
exists and that this may supersede the principles of sovereignty and noninterference (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
2001). Though at first sight it may be difficult to see why the human security agenda
was deemed more intrusive than, for instance, the development and good
governance agendas of the 1990s, sensitivities might have arisen from the fact that
many nations consider security a national interest of a higher order than they do
perhaps in the case of development or governance. Also the comprehensive and
integrated nature of human security might have been a reason for anxiety.
Finally, the relationship between human security, human development and human
rights became part of the reform process in the United Nations, as evidenced in the
report of the Secretary-General High Level Panel on Global Threats, Challenges and
Change (2004) and the UN Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom: Towards
Development, Security and Human Rights for All (2005). The High Level Panel
outlined the major threats to mankind and analysed the weaknesses in the
response of the international community, including the UN itself. It urged to better
implement a number of existing declarations and commitments as well as proposed
new structures, policies and instruments to deal with the challenges identified. Eyecatching innovations included a new Peace Building Commission, the strengthening
of the Human Rights Commission as well as changes in the Security Council.
Further, the Panel reasserted the importance of peace-building, conflict prevention,
6
preventive diplomacy and mediation and also endorsed the emerging notion of the
‘responsibility to protect’.
The Secretary-General in his report In Larger Freedom highlighted the integrated
nature of the issues at stake. The report states that: “The Secretary-General fully
embraces a broad vision of collective security.” The report lists a variety of threats,
saying that: “All these threats can cause death or lessen life chances on a large
scale. All of them can undermine states as the basic units of the international
system” (2005: 3). The report argues that:
“The world must advance the causes of security, development and human
rights simultaneously, otherwise none will succeed. Humanity will not enjoy
security without development, it will not enjoy development without security
and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights” (2005: 1).
The document highlights the ‘freedom of fear’, ‘freedom of want’ and ‘freedom to
live in dignity’, and outlines for each of these freedoms initiatives and proposals,
while stressing the need for collaboration between states, civil society, private
sector and regional and global cooperation, as well as for UN reform.
Convergence towards a broad-based Human Security Approach
“Refining and redefining our understanding of security over the past two decades”,
Renner sums up four core insights: First, “[w]eapons do not necessarily provide
security; Second, “[r]eal security in a globalising world cannot be provided on a
purely national basis. A multilateral and global approach is needed to deal
effectively with a multitude of trans-boundary challenges”; Third, “[t]he traditional
focus on state (or regime) security is inadequate and needs to encompass safety
and well-being for those living there. If individuals and communities are insecure,
state security itself can be extremely fragile”; Four, “[n]on-military dimensions have
an important influence on security and stability” (2005: 5).
In response to those trends, the conceptual and policy developments since 1994
are clearly converging in the direction of a broadly defined human security concept
based on a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the man-made and
natural hazards threatening mankind, and associated approaches to deal with those
in practice. Overlooking the evidence, the strengths of the human security approach
are considerable. It does first of all justice to the comprehensive and integrated
nature of the multi-dimensional global ‘problématique’ and the required solutions,
even though this perhaps comes at the price of complexity and sometimes
vagueness. Second, it has been able to interlink the different components of
security and has brought about a balance between state and people-centred
notions of security. Third, as a consequence of all this, it has engendered a
broader, ‘developmentalist’ understanding and approach to security as well as put
human rights centre stage. Fourth, it has mobilised a wider group of actors at
different societal levels to deal with the wide-ranging security challenges at stake
and also has created room, at least in theory, for a more pro-active, preventive
approach.
The critiques on Human Security
All these positive points do not preclude, unfortunately, that a number of conceptual
and practical aspects of human security remain rather problematic and that there
7
also still remains a lack of concrete action or implementation in policy practice, as
will be discussed below. The Human Security Report argues that “a concept that
lumps together threats as diverse as genocide and affronts to human dignity may
be useful for advocacy, but it has limited value for policy analysis (2005: viii).”
In this section I will discuss the problem of multiple definitions and the
comprehensive nature of the concept. Both are creating difficulties for policy
practice, as they compound simple and unambiguous implementation.
A first issue relates to the definition of the concept ‘human security’ itself. The
different state-related and multilateral actors involved in the process, including the
UNDP, Japan, Canada and the EU, have adopted varying definitions of human
security. This definitional heterogeneity still further increases, when we include
academic sources and NGO reports. Part of the problem derives from the fact that
the UNDP in its seminal report of 1994 circumscribes rather than defines the notion.
It comes close to admitting this itself by saying:
“Several analysts have attempted rigorous definitions of human security. But
like other fundamental concepts, such as human freedom, human security is
more easily identified through its absence than its presence. And most
people instinctively understand what security means” (1994: 23).
Even if this were correct, it is not a very comforting position from an academic or
policy point of view where conceptual clarity is needed.
The Commission on Human Security defines human security as “to protect the vital
core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human
fulfilment” (2003:4). The CHS observes itself that the contents of these notions vary
across individuals and societies and that by consequence any concept of human
security must be dynamic. Hence they “refrain from proposing an itemized list of
what makes up human security” (2003:4). This somehow corroborates the viewpoint
in the original UNDP report.
The United Nations University has also contributed to the definitional debate about
human security, in particular through the writings of Thakur and Newman on ‘nontraditional security’. The non-traditional security approach suggests that traditionally
defined international security “does not necessarily correlate with all the dimensions
of the security of people and that an overemphasis upon statist security can be to
the detriment of human security needs” (2004: 2). These authors assert that: “The
citizens of states that are ‘secure’ according to the abstract and remote concept of
traditional security can be perilously insecure in terms of the threats to the lives of
individual beings in everyday reality” (2004:2). Thakur and Newman introduce the
following definition of human security by the United Nations University:
“Human security is concerned with the protection of people from critical and
life-threatening dangers, regardless of whether the threats are rooted in
anthropogenic activities or natural events, whether they lie within or outside
states, and whether they are direct or structural. It is “human-centered” in
that its principal focus is on people both as individuals and as communal
groups. It is “security oriented” in that the focus is on freedom from fear,
danger and threat” (Thakur and Newman 2004: 4).
8
Here we see some elements and ‘language’ that were already apparent in the
writings of the UNDP report (1994) and also return in the work of the CHS. In this
definition the referent is clearly human beings as individuals or within groups and
not the state. It also talks about the notion of freedom, though it does not explicitly
mention the freedom from want, as included in the Secretary-General’s recent
report (2005). Its conception of threats is broad, but it does not explicitly refer to
people’s capabilities or a process of empowerment, as some other definitions
reviewed did.
Apart from these discussions on the definition of the concept, there is also a level of
debate as to which global threat can be subsumed under the notion of human
security and which one not. When do challenges become so critical that they are a
human security risk? Renner argues that:
“Insecurity can manifest itself in other ways than violent conflict. The litmus
test is whether the well-being and integrity of society are so compromised that
they lead to possibly prolonged periods of instability and mass suffering”
(2005: 5).
Thakur and Newman similarly state that the notion does obviously not include all
health, welfare and development issues we face. These authors suggest that:
“ .. [t]hese issues become security concerns when they reach crisis point,
when they undermine and diminish the survival chances of significant
proportions of the citizens of society, and when they threaten the stability and
integrity of society” (2004: 3).
This obviously does not imply that one has to wait till the crisis point before taking
action. A proactive and preventive approach is without any doubt preferable above
‘late action’ that is usually less effective and more costly in humanitarian and
monetary terms. In this connection, present international and multilateral approaches
have been criticised due to the absence of a clear preventive agenda (Chesterman
and Malone 2004). Yet, one could argue in contrast that state security par excellence
has been characterised by a reactive positioning and that the human security
perspective at least offers a potential for proactive action, also because this is linked
to a longer-term development agenda that is already by nature more forward-looking.
The adoption of a timely conflict-sensitive development approach could also very
much assist in this regard, as argued earlier.
Comprehensiveness
A definite asset of human security is at the same time a major handicap: its
comprehensiveness. Human security overarches different threats in very diverse
societal domains, includes a variety of state and non-state actors, and has far
reaching ambitions in terms of peace, development and human rights at once.
Though this has definite analytical advantages in view of the interrelated nature of
current problems, it may also imperil conclusive action as such complexity is difficult
to handle in practice. How to respect the multidimensionality of human security
without becoming paralysed in the face of all those challenges that demand
simultaneous and integrated action? We have already discussed above the need to
see state and people’s security as complementary and the need to link actions from
both domains. However, this aspect of comprehensive action has not yet been
satisfactorily resolved in practice either.
9
Another criticism levelled against the human security approach is that it is not yet
comprehensive enough. It could be argued in this connection that the notion lacks
somehow a proper theorisation on the immaterial aspects of security, such as
embodied in values, norms, culture and religion.
Many observers fear that due to its multi-dimensionality human security will become
a bran-tub from which policy actors select the bits they like or can use for their own
purposes or constituencies, while ignoring the rest. Others think that it may serve at
most as a convenient container or umbrella term at a rhetorical plane without having
much edge in day-to-day reality. Yet, on a more positive note we want to suggest that
in any field of professional endeavour experts and practitioners are struggling with
problems of complexity and comprehensiveness. Did not notable steps forward have
been made when looking, for instance, at international peace operations and the
elaboration of an institutionalised, international and bilateral, integrated security
agenda, despite the criticisms one may have on how this is implemented? The
surprising downward trends in the number of conflicts and related casualties as
substantiated in the first Human Security Report of 2005 and later version at least
offer a glimmer of hope that things are moving now in the right direction.
The War on Terror discourse and its counter-discourse
Irrespective of the merits and demerits of the human security approach, at present
we have seen a counter-tendency emerging as a consequence of the war on terror
discourse, which has led to a narrower and ore coercive security agenda in which
purely military perspectives gained predominance. Without denying the need to
include military expertise and instruments in resolving contemporary security
challenges, a state-driven war on terror involves a serious risk that complementary or
alternative perspectives, if not the whole notion of human security per se, is relegated
to a secondary place and made subservient to military logic. This process that the
Copenhagen School has called ‘securitisation’ has had definite drawbacks for the
promotion of the human security agenda.
The Copenhagen School describes how, by a process of ‘plotting’, normal ‘nonpoliticised’ issues (called ‘referent objects’) may become politicised and be made the
subject of political debate and action. In a next step these issues also may become
‘securitised’ and be labelled as a security threat by ‘securitising actors’. Through socalled ‘speech acts’ the latter portray issues, persons or entities as existential threats,
after which extraordinary measures can be imposed to deal with them (Emmers
2007). The Copenhagen view of securitisation is obviously based on a constructivist
and discursive approach to conflict that focuses on actor-driven manipulation of
discourse. Though the analysis of the Copenhagen School may at first instance
sound a little bit abstract, it is in fact not difficult to recognise securitisation processes
in practice. As of late, Islam has emerged high on the international security agenda,
as have immigration, climate change, HIV/AIDS and environmental degradation, to
mention only some issues that were earlier perhaps seen as serious societal
problems, but not accorded the label of a security threat. The Copenhagen School
suggests that securitisation can have dangerous aspects, leading to a further
militarization of society, curtailment of civic liberties and a resulting lack of checks
and balances.
10
After the events of 9/11, the ‘war on terror’ discourse started to represent a more
coercive trend in the thinking about international security. Though the ‘jihadistislamist’ and ‘war on terror’ discourses are evidently quite different from the analysis
of contemporary conflict that I gave above, it is also quite clear that many of the
factors underlying these forms of ‘terrorism’ and ‘counter-terrorism’ are actually quite
similar. In a way, contemporary intrastate conflict and the war on terror are thus
closely intertwined, especially if one believes that terrorism may have its roots in
adverse socio-economic conditions, more or less legitimate political grievances and
in what Clements (2005:74) has called ‘existential terror’, which for the purpose of our
discussion may be equated with a pervasive lack of human security.
Whatever the case, the militarization of the debate may well limit our view on the real,
underlying issues and preclude the formulation of alternative solutions. It may also
reduce the space of manoeuvre of public agencies and civil society organisations
that follow a different discourse and want to promote a different line of action.
According to many observers, especially in the developing and Muslim world, the war
on terror has, in fact, exacerbated, if not generated conflicts and thus has become a
risk factor on it own. It also has fostered a dangerous divide between the western
world and Islamic nations.
Fear instilled by the war on terror discourse, therefore, may not be our best guide
here. We may be better advised to recover and retain the ambitions embodied in the
human security concept, and to intensify our attempts to provide sustainable
development to those who are desperate at present, and become ever more
vulnerable to those who preach a violent solution.
The continuing relevance of Human Security
This brings me to the main argument of my paper. I want to argue that the human
security approach, despite some of the drawbacks outlined above in terms of
definitional vagueness and difficult-to-implement comprehensiveness, in essence
represents a sound and sensible approach to the promotion of a fundamental and
deeper kind of security than any coercive approach can perform. It has the capacity
to deal with the different types of natural and anthropogenic threats that are on the
agenda of this conference on ‘Critical World Issues’ at Caux. Recent events in the
Arab nations of North Africa and the Middle East have underlined that state-led
suppression of the human security needs of the population is ultimately not
sustainable and unable to bring long-term stability. It is also sad to see confirmed that
state-induced terror on the own population as mentioned in the human security
debate is very much in existence today, and still needs adequate answers to deal
with. It is to be hoped that in other cases around the world the human security
approach with its basically non-violent, preventative and developmentalist agenda be
able to bring change in a more gradual and less bloody manner.
Concluding observations
In this paper, I have sketched the parameters of contemporary conflict and described
the movement in the direction of the broader concept of human security. On the other
hand, I have outlined the tendency of securitising issues, as elaborated by the
Copenhagen School. Governments and other securitising actors may exaggerate
societal problems and overreact by military means or by curtailing human rights. This
11
may blur their vision and affect their openness to alternative solutions. I mentioned
the present War on Terror as an example of ‘over-securitisation’.
I like to conclude that despite some shortcomings, the discourse on human security
has brought important benefits to the security debate. It is needed as a counterdiscourse to militarised state-centred approaches that overlook human needs and
human rights. On the other hand, it must stay clear from the tendency of turning all
subjects into a security threat. The over-securitisation of issues has evident
disadvantages and is in last instance counter-productive, as the Copenhagen School
already warned us of. The best course of action seems to be finding the middleground. It is here where societal actions need to be formulated to deal with societal
problems well before they become a security risk. It is here also where the assets of
the human security approach can best be protected and maintained and the
dysfunctions of over-securitisation avoided.
References
Buzan, B., O. Waever and J. de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for
Analysis. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner.
Chesterman, S. and D. M. Malone (2003) ‘The Prevention-Intervention Dichotomy:
Two Sides of the Same Coin?’ in W. Maley et al. (eds.) From Civil Strife to
Civil Society. 57-79. New York: United Nations Press.
Clements, K.P. (2005) ‘The War on Terror: Effects on Civil Society Actors in the Field
of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding’, in P. van Tongeren et al. (eds)
People Building Peace II, Successful Stories of Civil Society. 71-82.
Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner, 71-82.
Commission on Human Security (2003) Human Security Now. New York:
Commission on Human Security.
Daudelin, J. (2004) ‘Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention.’ in T. Keating and W.A.
Knight (eds.) Building Sustainable Peace. 1-22. Edmonton: University of
Alberta Press.
Emmers, R. ‘Securitization’, in A. Collins (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 109-125.
Frerks, G. (2008) ‘Human security as a discourse and counter-discourse’, Security
and Human Rights, vol. 19, 2008, no. 1, 8-14.
Frerks, G. and B. Klein Goldewijk ‘Human Security: Mapping the Challenges’ in:
Frerks, G. and B. Klein Goldewijk (eds.) Human Security and International
Security. 21-44. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Hough, P. (2004) Understanding Global Security. London/New York: Routledge.
Human Security Centre, University of British Columbia (2005) Human Security
Report 2005, War and Peace in the 21st Century. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) The
Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: IDRC.
Renner, M. (2005) ‘Security Redefined.’ in Worldwatch Institute The State of the
World 2005: Redefining Global Security. 3-19. New York/London: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Thakur, R. and E. Newman (2004), ‘Introduction: Non-Traditional Security in Asia.’
in R. Thakur and E. Newman (eds.). Broadening Asia’s Security Discourse
12
and Agenda: Political, Social and Environmental Perspectives. 1-16.
Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press,
UN Secretary General High Level Panel on Global Threats, Challenges and Change
(2004) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. New York: United
Nations.
UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations (2005) In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and
Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General, A59/2005.
Worldwatch Institute (2005) The State of the World 2005: Redefining Global Security.
New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.
About the author
Prof. Georg Frerks holds a chair in Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management at
Utrecht University and a chair in Disaster Studies at Wageningen University. Frerks
served for nearly twenty years in the Dutch Foreign Service both at headquarters and
abroad. He also was head of the Conflict Research Unit of the Netherlands Institute of
International Relations ‘Clingendael’. As a sociologist and policy analyst he focuses on
conflict and disaster-induced vulnerabilities and local responses as well as on policies
and interventions implemented at international and national levels. Frerks acts as an
advisor to several governmental and non-governmental organisations. Recent (coauthored or co-edited) publications include Dealing with Diversity, Sri Lankan
Discourses on Peace and Conflict. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International
Relations ‘Clingendael’ (2005); Gender, Conflict and Development. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank (2005); Human Security and International Insecurity. Wageningen:
Wageningen Academic Publishers (2007); Principles and Pragmatism. Civil-military
Action in Afghanistan and Liberia. Utrecht / Amsterdam: Universiteit Utrecht / Bart
Klem Research (2006); ‘Civil-military cooperation: a balancing act under precarious
conditions’, in: Molier, G. and E. Nieuwenhuis (eds) Peace, Security and
Development in an Era of Globalization. The Integrated Security Approach Viewed
from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. 207-223. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
(2009).
.
E-mail: georg.frerks@planet.nl
13