2 Definitions, critiques and counter-critiques

If human security first saw light within international organization, and then
states, it has increasingly become a subject of interest in the academic world. Where
it doesnot suffer from a deficit of definitions. Defining it has been an art reminiscent
of the blind men who each tried to describe an elephant according to the part they
were able to feel. An elephant was described as a long narrow soft column by the
one who had touched the trunk, a massive circular bulk by the who had felt the ivory.
The myriad of academic definitions on human security, and the fact that one
definition has not been coined so far, similarly reir forces the view that the ‘truth’
about the definition is in the eyes of the beholder.

Proponents of a broad definition in the meantime argue that instead of

lamenting the lack of definitions, research should be concerned with what the act of
defining within security studies inherently says about power relations based on
political, moral and ethical choices. The lack of an agreed-upon definition is ‘political
trapping of the disciplines’ definitional project’ (Grayson. 2004:357). A broad
definition is, therefore, critical to transforming the ethos, raising questions that are
peripheral to security studies and encouraging comprehensive measures to be
applied to issues that affect the everyday lives of people, subjective as they may be,
but of paramount importance. If security is ultimately a feeling, then human security
must be a felt experience.

The art of definitions

What is human security in the final analysis and why are there so many
definitions and critics?

The simplest definition of security is ‘absence of insecurity and threats’, i.e.

freedom from both ‘fear’ (of physical, sexual or psychological abuse, violence,
persecution, or death) and ‘want’ (of gainful employment, food, and health). Human
security, therefore, deals with the capacity to identity threats, to avoid them when
possible, and to mitigate their effects when they do occur. This broadened use of the
word security encompasses two ideas: one is the notion of ‘safety’ that goes beyond
the concept of mere physical security in the traditional sense, and the other, the idea
that people’s livelihoods should be guaranteed against sudden disruptions. Defining
human security therefore begins with its juxtaposition with the traditional state-centric
definition of ‘security’ from the realist and neo-realist school. A simplified table (Table
2.1) can illustrate the differences between a state-centred an a human-centred
approach to security.

Scholars and policy makers have variously human security as: (a) an
attractive idea but lacking analytical rigor; (b) limited to a narrowly conceived
definition; and (c) an essential tool for understanding contemporary challenges to
people’s well-being and dignity. Among academics, the debate is, first, between the
proponents and detractors of human security, and, second, between a narrow, as
opposed to a broad conceptual theorization of human security.

In 2004, to mark ten years of definitional deliberations on the concept of

human security, the journal Security Dialogue brought together 21 of the most vocal
academics who had expressed their opinions on the subject. The results were
published in a special issue devoted to the question of “What is human security?”.
Box 2.1 classified the various definitions of these authors according to their opinions
on the academic usability, the political implementations and the possible strategies
that were identified.

The minimalist (narrow)/maximalist (broad) debate

Stoett’s gradient of minimalist to maximalist definitions illustrates the vastness

and complexity of the human security debate (Stoett, 1999). Using the maximum
/minimum gradient, Figure 2.1 presents an attempt to class some of the better known
definitions of human security in relationship to each other based on the
characteristics that distinguish them.

Listed vertically at each end of the spectrum are different traits a definition is
more likely to reflect, being located nearer either end of the scale. A definition
located nearer the centre can be considered to reflect all or other some of these
aspects in varying degrees. How much each definition incorporates the language of
fear/want/dignity can be read according to the horizontal measure at the top of the
frame. The measure is cumulative. Thus, for example, the Toda definition is
understood to be based on the language of fear, as well as want, as well dignity, and
not solely on dignity. Along the horizontal measure at the bottom of the frame, a
cumulative measure indicates the referents or actors any definition is likely to
incorporate. Because the scale is again cumulative, it can also be understood as
measuring the degree to which a definition focuses on empowerment of the
individual.

The most minimalist approach to human security, i.e. ‘freedom from fear’,
seeks to ensure individuals’ safety from direct threat, their physical integrity and
satisfaction of basic needs. Threats to be addressed remain relatively traditional:
armed conflict, human rights abuses, public insecurity and organizes crime. Such a
narrow definition is justified by its analytical quality and its policy-applicability, in
opposition to the all-encompassing definition of human security that is deemed to be
a useless ‘shopping list of threats’ (Krause, 2004).

Amitav Acharya

Acharya argues that we need to avoid casting the HS debate within the existing
paradigms of IR. Instead, HS is in itself a holistic paradigm which offers opportunities
for creative synthesis and theoretical eclecticism. As for its policy utility, the concept
addresses issues that the narrow definition of security no longer reflects in term of
real world developments. ‘Governments can no longer survive – much less achieve
legitimacy – solely by addressing economic growth; nor can they maintain social and
political stability solely by providing for defense againts external military threats .
Democratization empowers new actors, such as civil society, that must be accounted
for in the security frameworks’.

Sabina Alkire

As one the theorist of the Commission of Human Security, she crafted their
conceptual definition ‘to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that advance
human freedoms and human fulfillment’. The definition disciplines the content of
human security by focusing only on the the ‘vital core’ – the ‘freedom that are the
essence of life’ – and the by selecting only critical (severe) and pervasive
(widespread) threats. Yet, while the concept aims at creating a viable security
framework to allow for policy responses to non-state threats, defining clear policy
priorities is needed.

Lloyd Axworthy

While national and HS interest are complementary, the challenge lies in finding the
meeting place ‘between global rights and national interests’. ‘This kind of security is
based on the emerging, growing body of law and practice that establishes the
authority of international humanitarian standards to challenge the supremacy of
national state sovereignty – a fundamental shift from the state-based balance of
power of the Cold War’. Policy-wise, viewing concerns from those focused on
national interest to those affecting the individual offers a different lens through which
to understand and implement policy. The concept recognizes the interconnectedness
of our security on that of our neighbours on the one hand, and the fact that basic
rights of people are fundamental to world stability on the other. The development of
HS science and governance solutions must be based on thorough research, training
and education in a cross-cultural context.

Kanti Bajpai

Threats to security and capacities to deal with them vary according to time, so a
universalist conceptual definition is a misguided idea. HS study as a policy science
must focus on audits of threats and possible responses. Having commissioned a yet
unpublished public opinion survey among 10.000 people in India on national and
human security and how insecure Indians feel, Bajpai proposes to draw a Human
Security Index based on eleven measures of threats.

Barry Buzan

No clear analytical value is derived from the concept of HS which confuses

international security which social security and civil liberties. HS thus presents a
reductionist vision of international security and hence has limited academic usability.
The concept collapses the differences between international and domestic security
agendas without analysing existing linkages. Yet, the concept may allow for
discussion of human rights issues which were previously considered sensitive, but
this amounts to little more than ‘political pandering’.

Paul Evans

HS highlights issues of state responsibilities, sovereignty and intervention.

Reconciling national security and development is necessary in developing countries.
Individual must be at least one of the referent points for determining security for
whom, from what and by what means.

Kyle Grayson

The act definition is an act power which marginalizes some and empowers other. As
no workable definition exist, HS enable broader and deeper questioning of subject
usually and unjustifiably peripheral to security studies. HS ultimately subverts the
power relationship upheld by security studies in order to question the legitimacy of
established paradigms. HS makes new, different and better policy orientations
possible by including options that were excluded before.

Don Hubert

Definitional issues are unlikely to be resolved but should not stand in the way of
affective international action to improve HS. Lack of agreed definition may however
impede scholarly work. The major moral question relates to the legitimacy of
international intervention or military action againts atrocities such as genocide. The
concept has both policy relevance and policy impact, for instance, it was successfully
used for a advocating the banning of landmines establishment of the ICC.

Keith Krause
Krause advocates for a focus on freedom from fear because a) broad definition is
simply an itemized wish-list, and b) there are no clear gains from linking security and
development. Thus, the narrow definition of HS allows for clear policy goals and
actions to combat direct threats to the individual (such as organized violence).

Jennifer Leanning

For Leanning, the concept of HS includes social, psychological, political, and

economic factors and encompasses psychological needs and individuals
relationships with location, community and time. In addition to basic needs like food,
water and shelter, and a degree of protection, people also have psycho-social needs
such as identity, participation, and autonomy, for which they need a home, identity, a
network of social and family support, and relationships with time (an acceptance of
the past and a positive grasp of the future). It is therefore important to define and
measure HS at the local level and to develop models of early warning and
evaluation.

P.H. Liotta

The multiplicity of conflicting issues should not lead to dismissal of the concept but to
an examination of what forms of security are ‘relevant and right’ at community, state,
regional and global levels. HS is an attractive mandate for middle power
governments.

Keith Macfarlane

There is no intrinsic reason to favour broad definitions and no analytical value or

normative traction in re-labeling human development as HS. The wider definition
makes the establishment of policy priorities difficult. Narrower protection-focused
definitions have had more success in implementation of agenda.

Andrew Mack

According to Mack, ‘if the term “insecurity” embraces almost all forms of harm to
individuals – from affronts to dignity to genocide – it loses any real descriptive power.
Any definition that conflates dependent and independent variables renders causal
analysis virtually impossible. A concept that aspires to explain almost everything in
reality explains nothing’. While a broad definition of the concept may not have
analytical value, Mack nevertheless sees value in broadening the security referent
away from the state. If it is states that threaten citizens, how can they also protect
them? Ultimately, the concept indicates shared political and moral values between
diverse groups of actors.

Edward Newman

HS highlight what traditional views of security leave out, which is a useful normative
project. Yet, a broad definition of HS may not be useful because it generates an
unworkable number of variables. Much human insecurity results from structural
issues, beyond the influence of individuals. Human security holds normative
implications for the evaluation of state security, especially, ‘conditional security’: the
international legitimacy of state sovereignty rests not only on control of territory, but
also upon fulfilling certain standards of human rights and welfare for citizens’.

Osler Hampson

Hampson classifies the various definitions of Human Security into a triangle of

‘freedom: Natural right/rule of law, humanitarian concerns and sustainable
development’. 1) Natural right/rule of law, based on fundamental liberal assumption
of basic individual right of live, liberty and purpose of happiness and international
community’s responsibility to provide this and promote it. 2) Humanitarians:
International efforts for war crime, intervention, protection, peace building and
conflict prevention. 3) Sustainable Development: survival and health of individuals.
He argues that improved research efforts are critical in order to provide effective
guidance to IO/NGO and national governments seeking to incorporate HS into their
agendas. Effective action to improve HS must address the restructuring of legal,
political and economic institutions.

Roland Paris

The HS discourse is currently dominated by ‘circular discussion’ deliberating

definition. Yet, the vagueness is very problematic for academic study given inability
to analytically separate the components of the concept, rendering a determination of
casual relationships impossible. Ultimately, the vagueness of definition serves a
political purpose in uniting diverse coalition of actors.

Astri Suhrke

Suhrke argues that HS has been a useful tool for middle powers (such as, Canada
and Norway) and the countries that form the Human Security Network. As an
agenda, however, it has been crowded out of the international forum by post-9/11
concerns over terrorism. Academic interests were generated as a result of funding
provided by the policy community as well as new interest in a emerging concept.
Whether that interest will survive however remains unclear. ‘The critical question for
survival is hardly definitional coherence or strong disciplinary anchors. Rather, at
issues is whether an academic discourse in a policy-related area can mobilize
sufficient resources and intellectual momentum to sustain itself independently of the
shifting priorities of states’.

Ramesh Thakur

Human security is improved when the ‘quality of life’ of people in society can be
upgraded, that is, the enhancing of what he calls ‘human welfare’. It is threatened
when this ‘quality of life’, which is left open to definition, is degraded by threats such
as unchecked demographic growth, diminished resources and scarcity, or access
issues, and other global reaching threats. The reformulation of national security into
HS has ‘profound consequences’ for international relations, foreign policy and
people’s conception privileges military in terms of resources allocation but non-
traditional concerns merit the gravity of the security label.

Caroline Thomas

Human security is an integrative concept allowing for bridging and interconnection of

sector specific threats to people in the international system, rather than states. For
Thomas, HS means the provision of basic material needs and realization of human
dignity, including emancipation from oppressive power structure, global, national or
local in origin or scope. A distinction is made between quantitative aspects of HS,
which are the basics needs (food, shelter, healthcare and education) and the
qualitative aspects, encompassing dignity: personal autonomy, control over one’s
life, participation in the community, chance and opportunities. The concept provides
a language and rationale for raising the concerns of majority of humanity. The
ultimate utility of the concept is in the practical application of knowledge to
interconnections between threats. For policy purposes, bottoms-up participatory
approaches to politics are necessary.

Peter Uvin

HS provide a bridge between humanitarian relief, development assistance. Human

rights advocacy and conflict resolution and allows for insights and strategies about
the overlaps and intersections between these fields. ‘Increasingly, scholars and
practitioners from different professional disciplines are seeking to go outside the
confines of their usual professional boxes to develop a better understanding of the
relations between the different fields of social chance’.

Donna Winslow and Thomas Hylland Eriksen

As anthropologists, they do not limit their definition to the ‘traditional’ definition of

human security as freedom from fear and freedom want. Rather, they examine ‘how
security is defined in different social and cultural contexts, through symbolic and
social process, and how security and insecurity are dealt with through social
institutions’. Because security in HS is not a static concept, it offers potential for new
theories to make it possible to examine processes of signification and meaning in
relation to other issues. ‘thereby connecting the quest for security to issues of
identity’.

Source: Based on these authors expressing their views on the definitions, academic
and policy utility of human security in Security Dialogue vol. 35 no. 3, September
2004.

Figure 2.1 Definitional mapping tool

Canada endorses this understanding of human security defends ‘freedom

from pervasive threats to people’s rights, safety, or lives’. The December 2001
Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, A
Responsibility to Protect also defends this narrower view of human security, based
on direct physical violence organized around a classical epistemology of threats as
open conflict and war: ‘The fundamental components of human security – the
security of people againts threats of life, health, livelihood, personal safety and
human dignity – can be put at risk by external aggression, but also factors within a
country, including “security forces”’ (ICISS, 2001:15). Authors such a Krause, Mack,
and MacFarlane also advocate the narrow concept for reasons of conceptual clarity
and analytic rigour. Krause supports the human security concept as a key to a
powerful agenda, but wants it limited to freedom from fear, since including freedom
from want would make it an endless list, a ‘potential laundry of bad things that can
happen’. For instance, he does not understand why explaining illiteracy as human
security should be helping policy formulation (Krause, 2004: 367). Freedom from
fear, on the other hand seems to him a coherent and manageable agenda, which
has an intellectual tradition that rests on Weber and Hobbes and on limited
institutions that can make safety their mandate. MacFarlance similarly opposes
broadening of security since it would makes prioritization difficult and ultimately
unmanageable (MacFarlane, 2004: 368). For Mack, the concept is less an analytical
concept than a signifier of shared political and moral values (Mack, 2004: 366). For
Murray and King, the ‘essential’ elements are those that are: ‘Important enough for
human beings to fight over or to put their lives or property at greater risk’ (King and
Murray, 2001).

The broadest category of definitions adds ‘a life of dignity’ to ‘freedom from

want and fear’. Defend by the Human Security Network as well as UNDP, the
combination of security, development and dignity encompasses both material and
quantitative aspects of human security. The rationale behind the Japanese view of
human security, for example, ‘preservation and protection of the life and dignity of
individual human beings’, is the essential indivisibility of human security components,
the presence of a wide range of non-classical issues affecting individuals and the
interconnectedness of threats (individuals insecurity causes global instability). Japan
thus underlined the need of a malleable cultural definition of the ‘vital core of all
human lives’ to make the concept adaptable to Asian values and not a replica of the
Western human rights agenda.

Academics supporting the broad view of human security recognized the

maximalist definition with its added value including going beyond classical violent
threats. MacLean highlights for example that

Human security does not merely ‘envelope’ matters of individual benefit (such
as education, health care, protection from crime, and the like) […] but rather
denotes protection from the unstructured violence that often accompanies
many aspects of non-territorial security, such as violence emanating from
environmental scarcity, or mass migration.

(MacLean, 2002)

Supporters of the broad conception, exemplified by the 1994 UNDP definition

and embraced by the government of Japan, include academics such as Leaning.
Alkire, Thakur, Axworthy, Bajpai, Hampson, Winslow and Eriksen, as well as Kofi
Annan. For Jennifer Leaning, the concept ‘includes the social, psychological, political
and economic factors that promote and protect human well being through time’
(Leaning , 2004: 354). Thakur refers of human security as ‘the quality of life of the
people of a society or polity. Anything which degrades their quality of life
demographic pressures, diminished access to or stock of resources, and so on – is a
security threat’ (Thakur, 2004: 348). Similarly, Acharya bases his understanding on
the human costs of violent conflict and the need to focus on human needs and the
rights dimension, that may be a base for conflicts but are not the only reason for
accepting human security (Acharya, 2004: 355). Uvin believes that there is ‘urgent
need of humanitarianism, development, human rights and conflict resolutions’ (Uvin,
2004: 352).

To their proponents, broad definitions also provide ‘integrated solutions for

multifaceted issues’ (Hampson, 2004), and imply useful inter-disciplinary dialogue.
The Commission on Human Security thus proposed a more expansive and
maximalist definition of human security around ‘a vital core of all human lives’ in the
Human Security Now report of 2003, enlarging the concept to a new epistemology of
threats and structural forms of violence, i.e. ‘violence built in the structure and
[showing] up as unequal power and consequently unequal life chances’ (Galtung,
1969), as well as structural inequalities and distributional injustices. Structural
inequalities and according to the Commission on Human Security, which calls for
instance for the reform of intellectual property rights regimes on pharmaceuticals,
arguing that these regimes lend, in developing countries especially, to major health
problems which can be seen as built into structure, thus being threats to global
human security issues.

Converging definitions

The various definitions of human security differ according to the nature of

threats, values and priorities to be pursued, and strategies for prevention, yet, there
are commonalities to be found, the foremost being that security is seen beyond the
prerogative of the State, but as that of individuals within them. Second is the
interdependence between the security of individuals and that of systems. Human
beings therefore become a point of national and global interests. Third is the
expansion of the notion of violence, which goes beyond physical threats to such
outcomes as extreme under-nourishment, human rights abuses, etc., echoing the
structural violence in the writings of Galtung. To traditional threats of conflict,
violence, nuclear weapons, military threats and terrorism are added non-traditional
ones, i.e. economic, social, environmental, etc., in other words, quality of life.

Hampson’s Madness in the Multitude analyses the various definitions of

human security as built on three distinct pillars: the natural rights/rule of law
approach, the safety of people/humanitarianism approach and the sustainable
development approach. The ‘human rights’ view, focusing on universal, inalieable
‘natural rights’, presupposes the protection and promotion of human rights an
obligation of the international community, linked as it is with international security.
The question of minority rights is an important and much contested aspect of this
approach. An example of the advancement of human security under the banner of
human rights is the building of international institutions such as the ICC – but this
approach remains quite focused on national-level human rights law. Threats are
considered in terms of the absence or the violations of norms, laws and codes. The
safety people approach focused on people in conflicts, emergencies and situations
of ‘dire need’. It is also called the ‘humanitarians approach’, because it focused on
international law in order for the international community to take charge in situations
of genocides, war crimes and humanitarian crisis. It is a conflict-based approach and
stems from international efforts to set norms and limits to wartime behaviour and the
effects of conflicts on civilians. And, perhaps most importantly, it is an interventionist
approach as it paves the way for the internationally legal use of force to ensure the
safety of peoples. This is obviously a very contentious path as some arguments
insist that interventions, be they military or non-military, can in fact exacerbate
conflicts rather than resolve them or alleviate their harm. Some branches have
begun to consider the need for economic and structural causes of war to be
assessed. In this way the UN recognized that ‘non-military threats sources of
instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields have become
threats to peace and security’ (1992 Security Council).

The economic interpretation of human security is an offshoot of economic and

developmental studies that have established the efficacy of the market and the fact
that the welfare state is not economically viable except in post-industrialized
countries and cash-rich oil states. Yet, the restructuring of several welfare states
under international Monetary Fund and World Bank guidelines have resulted in a
worldwide community of transition states that are rapidly privatizing, and thereby,
causing economic disruption, namely, unemployment and reduction in state benefits.
These have caused widespread economic distress and insecurity by seriously
jeopardizing livelihood options and thus denying many a life of fair means
corresponding to the various aspects of life affected by them. These are economic,
food, good health, employment, personal security/safety, dignity, cultural integrity,
environment, and political security. This approach is considered to be consistent with
the UNDP report. It differs radically from the other approaches as it seeks to
construct human security on broad and comprehensive terms which go beyond
human rights violations to wide aspects of underdevelopment, inequality, disease,
international crime, population growth and environmental degradation for example.
One of the key features of this approach is its marginalization of military matters and
the emphasis placed on sustainable development, distribution and social justice and
the means to ensure people’s security. Under this approach, the other categories are
blurred: the right to development becomes a human right; health becomes a security
priority; refugee flows become an international responsibility.

Visualizing human security

Hampson sums up the various definitions as triangular interrelations, resting

on three interconnected pillars: ‘safety of people (freedom from fear) – equity and
social justice (freedom from want) – rights and rule of law (liberty)’ whose
communion might be achieved through conflict prevention, human development and
human rights. The three variables depend on each other to exist, expand, and
probably, even act. Hampson’s trident is directly linked to the CHS’s concerns for
values: survival, quality of daily life and dignity. The broadest way of looking at HS
seeks to ensure that people have the security to live – beyond the ceasefire, beyond
the next nation of rice, etc. A want-based or development-based approach focuses
on subsistence: keeping people alive within the minimum of provisions; it is a
relatively long-term form of being. Adding security to a want-based approach brings
in survival, especially with regard to sudden downturns such as conflicts and
economic crises. Pure existence not being enough, people also need to have dignity,
livelihood and enjoyment as well as survival. The concept of universal dignity is
perhaps the most contested value within this definition – perhaps one that ultimately
distinguishes human security as a fresh concept.

Yet, by categorizing each as an angle for entry point, however, Hampson

does not explain the relationships between them, nor the interlinkages. As it is
apparent above, most definitions end up being associated with the broadest SHD
approach

Figure 2.2 Hampson’s triangular definitions

the UNDP, the Japanese definition, ‘dignity’ approaches …), while Canada seems to
represent on its own the minimalist ‘safety peoples’ angle, and the ‘rule of law’ pole
remains son what trapped between those two extremities, with no definitions
specifically attached to it. Indeed, rather than polarizing the issue in a triangle
organization, which in the end does not seem to fit the real picture, it would probably
be best to go beyond Hampson’s categorization in triangular model. Instead of a
triangle model, we propose a variety of graphs that suit better the understanding of
the concept of human security and its relationships with other paradigms.

Figure 2.3 is loosely based on the divisions expressed in Hampson’s triangle

but reinterprets the overlap between the three areas identified as a potential
threshold for action based on consensus a threat to human security. This central
area is also the point where human security becomes distinct from other concepts
while pointing out that the area of overlap varies and is not always easily
discernable.
 Figure 2.4 maps some well-known definition of human security in comparison
to each other to show the relationship between them. The vertical axis ranks the

HS:
consensus
over nature
of threat;
threshold for
action

Figure 2.3 Human security as the nexus between safety, rights and equity

Definitions according to whether the threats they cover can be considered only direct
or also indirect. The diagonal axis converts this ranking into a scale of the language
of human security as popularized in discussion of the concept: ‘freedom from fear’
(at the beginning), ‘freedom from want’ (towards the middle of the scale) and ‘dignity’
(at the end of the scale). Finally, the horizontal axis measures the how narrow or
broad each definition can be considered to be end concurrently which actors might
be implicated in security issues according to the definition in question. The irregular
line that crosses the central axis represents the ‘limit of analytical usefulness’ of a
definition of human security according to some of its critics; it separates relatively
narrow definitions considering direct threats from broader definitions thus reflecting
the idea that a broader definition make a distinction between dependent and
independent variables impossible.
Figure 2.5 situates various important aspects of the most well known human security
definitions in relationship to each other. Reading from the centre outwards in the
direction of the arrows, it shows that a narrow definition corresponds to a more
objective, narrower, more security focused definition that concentrates on ‘freedom
from fear’ while within the outer square the broadest kind of definition would be read
as the most subjective, most focused on the individual and integrating a dignity
approach. The arrow show that the facets of the definition are cumulative so that the
process of moving from a smaller square towards a larger on shows that what was
included in the narrower definition is integrated into a new focus on a new aspect.
The boundaries of the squares can move freely according to the specificity of the
definition they reflect.
In concert with successful human development (growth), the need for human
security is represented in Figure 2.6 as the threats posed by absence or failure of
human development (economic crisis, downturns). The relativity of both human
rights and human security concept, is depicted with circular threshold, or boundaries,
that can be expanded or contracted according to the values reflected in the particular
conception being employed to define a theat. This also shows how narrow and broad
definitions of human security vary according o the number of sources of potential
threats they identify and the fact that a broad definition is also likely to be more
relative. Human security here is depicted as the ‘securitization’ of development and
related protection against threats, i.e. growth with equity and capacity of face
downturns with security.
In Figure 2.7 the two largest circles represent the entire agenda of human
development and human rights respectively. Within each of these circles, specific
aspect of development and human rights are identified by smaller concentric circles.
The size of the circle represent the degree to which these aspects can be considered
critical to individual survival and well-being. Consequently, the absence of any of
these components is equivalent to a threat more or less critical in nature. The square
in the centre reflects the need for human security as the threats posed by the
absence of successful development or viable human rights. The square can expand
or contract according to the perception of threat, and thus, can also be read as a
threshold for action conceived of as a consensus about the nature of a threat. It
should be noted that this diagram inherently infers a hierarchy of rights and
development goals by ranking different aspects as more critical than others
according to the nature of the threat they pose, direct physical threats being
considered the most critical.
In Figure 2.8 the triangle represent one way of looking at human security in relation
to traditional versions of security. The apex, corresponds to the narrowest
conceptions of security as state based and focused on exterior, direct threats. The
first dotted line represents the transition from traditional security concepts to
concepts to human security. Moving down, the triangle becomes broader as does
the definition’ moving from a ‘freedom from fear’ emphasis towards the broadest
conceptions which include ‘freedom from want and dignity. The range of the security
referent also increases as communities are added to the definition (Buzan) moving
towards an exclusive focus on the individual. Read from the base upwards, the
image shows that human security in based on the individual and includes all above
components; traditional security considerations are thus justified only as a state-
based means to individual security.
In Figure 2.9 the circles illustrates the broad variety of threats that can be considered
under a human security framework while also demonstrating the subjectivity inherent
in threat assessment and the ingenious way that human security can integrate both
subjective and objective security threats. The point where the arrows meet is the
threshold of the threat and as the examples show, this can be different according to
who is affected by what threat and how. The nearer the threshold falls to the centre
of the circle the more likely it becomes that there will be a consensus over the threat
threshold as in the example of genocide. Equally, as the threshold approaches the
outside of the circle, the more subjective the perception of that threat is likely to be.
The consensus over any given threat will be greater if it is more generally
considered to be very serious; in this case it is also likely to be considered more
objective thus the circle can also be read to reflect a relationship between the gravity
of a threat and its status as subjective or objective.
Typology of critiques
If definitions are abundant, so are critiques based on theoretical, analytical and
policy-oriented arguments. The main critique is the alleged vagueness of the idea
and the broadness of its epistemology of threats. The entire agenda is presented as
first conceptually hollow, and, second, of very little use theoretically. Human security
is envisioned by Roland Paris or instance at best as a ‘rallying cry’ and at worst as
unadulterated ‘hot air’ (Paris, 2001: 88, 96). The ‘securitization’ of economic, social,
political and environmental and human rights issues is criticized by many
commentators, who see it as, variously, a broadening of the term security to the
point that it loses its signification, a gimmick to give credence to a vague movement,
and a dangerous form of jargon that could easily fall prey to political manipulation by
governments in the name of security.
To better understand the various critiques of this relatively new concepts, we
have grouped them into five clusters, each offering their own insight into the question
that human ssecurity raises.

1. The conceptual critiques look at how the very definition (or lack thereof) of
human security impedes its progress. These sets of critiques mostly argue
against the broad definition of human security, accusing it to be too vague to act
against threats, understand causalities and explain behavior.
2. Form an analytical point of view, the concept challenges the existing academic
discriplines by denying the traditional rules and realities of international relations
and driving towards a reductionist understanding of international security. Among
these critiques,the problem of over securitization is questionable not only on
moral grounds but also intellectually.
3. The political implication of a human security agenda is also criticized on the
ground the is challenges the traditional role of the sovereign state as the sole
provider of security as well as the very sovereignty of the state in the
international context.
4. Building on these arguments, a number of criticisms are diverted to the moral
implication of the human security agenda. Southern countries worry about
industrialized countries, notably Western-based, imposing their own social sand
economic values upon the weak. For critics from the so-called North, the moral
dilemma exist when it fails to distinguish between individual and universal
security concerns.
5. Those interested in operationalizing human securitys point to a number of
implementation difficulties sin creating abridge between rhetoric and policy. To
these critics, the complexity and subjectivity makes prioritization difficult,
measurements of success are unclear and human security represents a short-
term response to threats without providing long-term solutions.
We argue in Box 2.2 that each of the points raised could be challenged by counter
critiques that deserve examinations. Despite the challenges, human security still
appears to be a useful and innovative concept that inspires a new worldview and
political agenda but also sa powerful tool for research and analysis in both existing
academic fields as well as for cross disciplinary potentials.