Human Security Flashcards
The golden age of human rights?
End of the Cold War
International politics free from the Cold War imperatives and restrictions
Return of the UN
7 threats to human security
- Economic security
- Food security
- Health security
- Environmental security
- Personal security
- Community security
- Political security
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Civil and political rights: provide legal protections against abuse by the state and seek to ensure political participation for all citizens
Economic, social and cultural rights: guarantee individuals access to essential goods and services and seek to ensure equal social and cultural participation
1 debate about human security
The concept is too broad to be analytically meaningful or useful as a tool of policymaking
“Existing definitions of human security tend to be extraordinary expansive and vague” (Ronald Paris)
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Key arguments
- Relation between Human Rights and Security in Contemporary Security Issues (CSI)
- Background, Narrative, and Origins of the Issue & Role of the Past
- Best Conceptual Framework and Its Justification
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Argument - Relation between Human Rights and Security in Contemporary Security Issues
Humanitarian Intervention as a Security Concern
- The globalisation of communication has made distant suffering impossible to ignore, pushing intra-state atrocities into the heart of security studies
- Despite greater awareness, the international community’s capacity to respond remains limited, highlighting a security failure to protect vulnerable populations from atrocities
Sovereignty vs. Protection
- The central tension in CSI is between state sovereignty (UN Charter Articles 2.1 & 2.7) and the need to protect individuals from mass atrocities
- The debate pits respect for a state’s independence against the international responsibility to protect human rights within states
Threat to International Peace
- Security Council justifications for intervention often cite threats to international peace and security, even when the violations are purely domestic (e.g. Resolution 688 on Kurds in Iraq).
- Thus, human rights violations are securitised: they are constructed as threats not just to those directly affected, but to the broader international order
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Argument - Background, Narrative, and Origins of the Issue & Role of the Past
Evolution of the Concept
- After WWII, state sovereignty was prioritised, but over time, legal instruments like the 1948 Genocide Convention began carving out exceptions for egregious intra-state abuses
- The post-Cold War optimism saw a brief window of assertive humanitarian action (e.g. Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq), but this was undercut by inconsistent practices (e.g. Rwanda vs Haiti in 1994).
Selective Intervention and ‘Inhumanitarian Non-Intervention’
- The asymmetry in responses - quick action in some cases, silence in others - reveals how past failures (e.g. Rwanda, Bosnia) shape the legitimacy crisis in the present
- EG. The Syrian crisis - despite clear UN-documented war crimes, no robust intervention occurred
- This reinforces the theme of “inhumanitarian non-intervention”, where action is needed but not taken, thus threatening human rights security
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Argument - Best Conceptual Framework and Its Justification
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
- R2P is the central framework to conceptualise human rights security in CSI
- It emerged from the ICISS to reconcile sovereignty with human rights
- R2P outlines 4 core crimes that justify intervention: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
Why R2P?
- It formalises criteria, avoiding vague moral language that could be abused
- It shifts the narrative from a “right to intervene” to a “duty to protect”, aligning with human rights logic
- Endorsed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, making it the most widely accepted normative framework in CSI for human rights-based intervention.
Critique of R2P in Practice
- Although R2P theoretically clarifies thresholds, it fails in authorisation and enforcement
- The Security Council’s political nature - especially veto power - prevents impartial action
- Examples: Vetoes on Syria (Russia/China) and Gaza (USA) show the real-world helplessness of R2P in crises most in need of intervention
Duty vs Discretion
- Conceptual distinction: right vs duty to intervene
- International actors have a right to intervene but no duty
- This is unlike domestic systems where the state is obliged to uphold law, highlighting a structural security gap
- This conceptual vacuum allows national interest, costs, and politics to override human rights imperatives, undermining the effectiveness of intervention
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Definition of inhumanitarian non-intervention
Coined by Simon Chesterman, referring to the failure to intervene in the face of clear humanitarian crises, despite meeting the thresholds for action
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
“The Security Council has demonstrated a pronounced inability to…”
“…act in a unified fashion due to the competing national interests of the P5”
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
“These ‘four crimes’ are now widely accepted as…”
“…the only legitimate basis for humanitarian intervention.”
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
“Historically, states have constituted the greatest threat to their citizens’ livelihood:…”
“…more people were killed by their own governments during the bloody twentieth century than by external forces” (Lu, 2006)
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Strengths
- Exposure of power politics and the limits of legal mechanisms
- Reconceptualisation of security from state-centric to human-centric
- Conceptual clarity on the ‘duty to protect’ vs ‘right to intervene’
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Strength - Exposure of Power Politics and the Limits of Legal Mechanisms
- Demonstrates how the Security Council’s politicisation limit the enforcement of humanitarian norms, especially when vital national interests are involved
- This insight exposes how international law is often subordinate to political interests, which is a critical concern in CSI
- It shows that human rights protection is not guaranteed by legal texts or moral norms alone; it depends on who holds power and how they use it
- Unlike liberal institutionalist theories that assume legal institutions will enforce norms consistently, this argument introduces realpolitik and institutional failure into the analysis of humanitarian crises
- It offers a realistic assessment of the structural flaws in global governance, helping avoid naive assumptions about enforcement and legality
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Strength - Reconceptualisation of Security from State-Centric to Human-Centric
- Strongly frames security in terms of individuals, not just states, by arguing that the most severe security threats are often posed by states themselves to their own populations
- This reflects a paradigm shift in CSI from traditional (military, external) security toward human security, which prioritises protecting civilians from harm
- It redefines what security means, and by doing so, expands the scope of what CSI must address in theory and policy
- Unlike classical realist approaches, this view deconstructs sovereignty as a protective shield for perpetrators of mass violence
- It justifies humanitarian intervention as a security necessity, not merely a moral choice, adding urgency to a more proactive understanding of CSI
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Strength - Conceptual Clarity on the “Duty to Protect” vs “Right to Intervene”
- The argument that the international community lacks a duty to intervene offers a lens for understanding why most humanitarian interventions do not happen, even when thresholds are clearly met
- It explains the gap between normative frameworks and actual security practice, illuminating why atrocities continue despite the existence of mechanisms like R2P
- This refines our understanding of international inaction as a systemic failure rather than accidental
- It challenges the field to consider whether a new enforcement framework is needed - one based not just on rights but institutionalised duties
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Weaknesses
- Overreliance on institutional critique without offering practical alternatives
- Neglect of Constructivist Insights into Norm Evolution and Political Will
- Simplistic Framing of Intervention as a Binary Moral Act
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Weakness - Overreliance on Institutional Critique without Offering Practical Alternatives
- The chapter heavily critiques the UN Security Council’s structural flaws and political selectivity, but offers little in terms of viable alternatives beyond vaguely invoking the need for reform
- While highlighting the limitations of current institutions is important, CSI as a discipline is concerned not just with critique, but with solutions
- By failing to explore detailed alternatives - such as regional mechanisms, preventive diplomacy, or bottom-up approaches - the analysis limits its utility
- Arguments that emphasise institutional paralysis without operational suggestions do not help bridge theory and practice
- Overlooks the role of non-state actors in driving accountability and shaping intervention discourse
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Weakness - Neglect of Constructivist Insights into Norm Evolution and Political Will
- The chapter treats state interests and Security Council behaviour as largely fixed, downplaying how norms like R2P have evolved and continue to reshape state identities and practices over time - even if inconsistently
- From a constructivist CSI perspective, this neglects how norm internalisation, rhetorical entrapment, or use of language can still alter state behaviour or mobilise international action even in the absence of obligations
- By focusing primarily on failures, it undermines the normative gains made in the past few decades and ignores how discourses of legitimacy can constrain or shape state conduct
- Overlooks the impact of soft law, naming and shaming, and peer pressure as security mechanisms
“Humanitarian intervention” - Aidan Hehir
Weakness - Simplistic Framing of Intervention as a Binary Moral Act
- Tends to frame humanitarian intervention in binary terms - either morally necessary or politically blocked - without addressing the unintended consequences of military intervention itself as a security issue
- This framing underestimates the extent to which interventions can worsen insecurity, cause civilian harm, provoke regional instability, or exacerbate local power struggles
- It risks making the debate overly moralistic, rather than treating intervention as a multidimensional security practice with strategic, ethical, legal, and political layers
- Overlooks insights from feminist security theory, or postcolonial security, which emphasise how intervention often reproduces inequalities or reinforces Western dominance
“Human Security” - Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv
Key arguments
- Relation between human security and the question of security
- Background, narrative and origin of this issue, what the role of this past in the present
- Best conceptual framework to address this issue
“Human Security” - Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv
Argument - Relation between human security and the question of security
Human Security Reframes What Security Means
- Human security challenges the traditional, state-centric model of security by asserting that individuals, not just states, are legitimate “referent objects” of security
- The core issue is that human rights violations pose serious threats to security, but these do not always fall under traditional military definitions
Security Beyond the State
- Threats like disease, hunger and lack of political voice are as critical to security as armed conflict or terrorism
- These are often produced or exacerbated by the state itself, making the state both a provider and a potential threat to human security
Security Is Subjective and Contextual
- Human security brings attention to how individuals experience insecurity - this includes marginalised groups, the poor, and those impacted by gendered violence
- It broadens CSI to include economic, health, political, environmental, and community insecurities
“Human Security” - Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv
Argument - Background, narrative and origin of this issue, what the role of this past in the present
Historical Shift from Individual to State Security:
- In classical thought (e.g. Cicero), security meant the freedom to live without fear. Over time the state became the main object of security, especially during the Cold War.
The Post–Cold War Re-emergence of the Individual:
- The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report is described as a turning point: it shifted focus back to individuals, describing security in terms of “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want.”
Institutionalisation and Co-optation:
- While the concept gained traction within the UN, EU, and NATO, it has also been criticised for being co-opted by states, particularly Western powers, to justify military interventions or serve their own strategic interests
Modern Extensions: Climate, Migration, Post-humanism:
- The concept now encompasses transnational threats (e.g. climate change, pandemics)
- The 2022 UNDP report in the Anthropocene reframes human security to include long-term environmental and technological risks.
“Human Security” - Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv
Argument - Best conceptual framework to address this issue
Human Security as a Framework
- Human security refers to the protection of the “vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment” (CHS 2003: 4), involving:
• Freedom from fear (physical threats: war, violence, torture)
• Freedom from want (socioeconomic threats: poverty, hunger, disease)
• Freedom for future generations to inherit a healthy environment
• Human dignity (ethics and rights)
Why It Works for CSI
- Human security widens security beyond military threats, and deepens it to the level of individuals
- It aligns CSI with rights-based, intersectional, and people-centred concerns
Critical Potential of Human Security
- Scholars like Edward Newman and Annick Wibben argue that human security can challenge the status quo by exposing structural causes of insecurity (e.g., inequality, imperialism, exclusion).
Integration with Feminist and Post-human Approaches
- Feminist security studies add insights into how gender, race, and class affect vulnerability
- Post-human approaches further interrogate what “human” means in the context of technology, ecosystems etc.
