Opinion : A Criticism of Human Security

The decision to emphasise the security of the individual over that of the nation by broadening the scope of security was not without drawbacks. 

February 13, 2023 

Ahlad Pataparla | 2201017 | ahlad.pataparla22b@iiitg.ac.in

Three years after the conclusion of the Cold War, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report of 1994 introduced the concept of human security. The document opined security had long been interpreted too narrowly in terms of territorial integrity and human security involved more than just the absence of conflict. The old emphasis on the security of the state had dominated policymaking for centuries right up to the conclusion of the Cold War. Security policies during the Cold War were deeply influenced by the then-prevalent emphasis on the state’s security at the cost of the rights of the individual, leading to the nuclear arms race. 

The document further defined human security as "safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, jobs or communities”, challenging traditional state-centred notions of security and prioritising the rights of people over territorial integrity and national security. 

Open-ended definition and ambiguity

From its inception, the definition of human security was very open-ended. Proponents of the concept argue it was to make it inclusive as the definition of “security of the individual” was bound to vary across individuals and cultures. 

The Commission on Human Security’s 2003 report “Human Security Now” stated that, 

“What people consider to be “vital”—what they consider to be “of the essence of life” and “crucially important”— varies across individuals and societies. That is why any concept of human security must be dynamic. And that is why we refrain from proposing an itemized list of what makes up human security.”

Dynamically conceptualising human security, one of the driving forces behind global policymaking, has led to a lot of ambiguity surrounding the goals of the United Nations and world governments. Policymakers have been left without well-defined goals to work towards due to the open-ended definition. 

Critics argue that the inherent ambiguity in human security has let every problem faced by humanity as a whole and people individually be included under its already vast umbrella. By prioritising human security, policymakers would be prioritising every problem there is, ultimately not prioritising any problem.

A catchy slogan to get behind

Criticism of the ambiguity surrounding human security can be extended to its use by states to further their agendas. More developed “Western” countries have used “human security” to extend their security policies to not just defend their borders but to intervene outside their borders, all thanks to the prioritisation of the individual’s security over territorial borders. Weaker states have had their sovereignty violated by more powerful intervening states championing the cause of human freedoms and personal rights under the banner of human security. This has further deepened the rift between more developed states and their less developed counterparts, which have as much of a right to stay sovereign. This raises questions of accountability that often remain unanswered.

Human security has remained a very ambiguous concept that does not pinpoint the definition of security, thereby making it difficult to make policies in its interest. Activists and nations have used it to further their agendas by using it as a cover.