Discoursing the Concept of Human Security: A Closer Look at Its Usefulness

Transcription

1 Discoursing the Concept of Human Security: A Closer Look at Its Usefulness ===================================================================== Abstract 1 & 2 The concept of security has been intensively debated for long times in the fields of International Relations, Political Science, Military Science, and Peace and Security Studies, few to mention. But, it has still ambiguous and divergent meanings, and so lacks consensual understandings amongst scholars and uniform implications in different area of specializations and contexts. For this reason, many security scholars and practitioners have begun to develop alternative concepts of security as a way-out to reduce its conceptual ambiguity, such as collective security, regional security and human security. More importantly, human security like the contested and generic concept of security means different thing for different individuals, scholars, communities and state governments. In these times, nonetheless, there are two contending conceptualizations and arguments which have been approached about human security. These are the narrower versus broader views as well as optimistic (hopeful) versus pessimistic (skeptical) arguments on proving and/or disproving the usefulness of the concept of human security in the contemporary security discourses. The objective of this paper is therefore to review these two lines of conceptions and arguments, and then critically reflect on the usefulness of human security as a concept. Methodologically, the paper reviews considerable number of literatures, so that many scholarly works and international documents on human security are thoroughly analyzed. Thus, the paper concludes that notwithstanding of the twofold and contentious perspectives made so far on the concept of human security, it is useful and potential concept as an imperative idea, a critical theory, a normative framework, operative institutional policy, and as a political instrument in the contemporary security matters and public discourses. Key concepts: Security, National Security, Human Security, Human Security Theory. ==================================================================== 1. Introduction The concept of security is intensively reviewed in the fields of International Relations, Political Science, Military Science, and Security Studies, among others. However, it is still an open 1 Girmay Abraha, PhD. Candidate in Addis Ababa University, Institute for Peace and Security Studies. He is a senior Lecturer at Samara University, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies, Ethiopia, Phone number Gebreslassie Kiros Hailu, Lecturer at Mekelle University, College of Law and Governance, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies, Ethiopia. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 1

2 contention of debate on its meaning What does security exactly mean? (Baldwin, 1997; Alkire, 2003; Shinoda, 2004; Hussien et al., 2004; Debiel, 2005; Mclntosh, 2010). The word security has not only different meanings, but also contentious implication in different contexts (Burgess, 2007; Liotta et al., 2008; Tadjbakhsh, 2009). Due to the ongoing conceptual debates on and divergent implication about security, contemporary scholars, practitioners as well as international institutions have progressively begun to develop new concepts of security, such as collective security, comprehensive security, regional security and human security, to minimize the conceptual vagueness of security and maximize contextual implication of which the concept of security manifests (Bajipai, 2000). Human security is one of the dominant and newly neologized concepts of which many security scholars and experts use to explain causes and effects of insecurity from both the individual as well as for nation states (Paris, 2001). Just like the umbrella term security, human security is also a value-laden concept which has referred to various conceptions and interpretations as a new idea or theory, a starting point for analysis, a world view, a political agenda, or a policy framework (Tadjbakhsh, 2005). Irrespective of the ongoing debates and voluminous interpretations made on the concept of human security in different contexts and by different scholars, there has been one belief among which many intellectuals and advocates dominantly argue for that human security marks a paradigm shift of attention from a state-centered security paradigm to people-centered thinking of security (Edson, 2001; Hampson, 2008). It gives more concern for individuals and people rather than the state. This paradigm shift is massively galvanized and mobilized security scholars Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 2

3 and practitioners to rethink, debate, theorize and research on human security in a very dynamic perspective than ever before. The debates eventually led to two lines of conceptualizations and arguments on human security. In terms of conception, narrower and broader views are constantly debated. Likewise, optimistic/hopeful and pessimistic/skeptical arguments are constructed particularly on the usefulness of human security (Tadjbakhshs, 2005). The objective of this paper is therefore to review and elucidate the two lines of conceptualization and arguments and critically reflect on the usefulness of the concept of human security. The paper argues that the concept of human security is a potential and useful as an idea, a theory, a framework and an operative institutional policy, possibly instrument in the contemporary security matters. At the end, the paper will significantly add a conciliatory element to what has for a decade been an unnecessarily fractious debate on the usefulness of the concept of human security, and ultimately underpin the argument that pronounces about the critical usefulness of the concept of human security. To this end, there is one fact that this paper strongly underlines that social science terminologies and concepts are characterized by conceptual infeasibility, ambiguity, vagueness and theoretical softness (Bastow et al, 2010), but they could have a practical use in the context whereby used to explain social phenomenon. Boldly underlining, the need to consider the mentioned conceptual features into account in social science research would therefore be helpful to heighten conceptual clarity and reduce oversimplification of concepts which is often overlooked by some skeptical arguers, for example Paris (2001), who pessimistically argue on the usefulness of the concept of human security because of mere its conceptual ambiguity. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 3

4 The paper has four parts: - first it introduces the umbrella security and its shift towards human security paradigm; the second syntheses the narrower versus broader views as well as the hopeful (optimistic) versus doubtful (pessimistic) perspectives made so far on the usefulness of the concept of human security; the third is the main argument and exposition of which the paper critically discusses. The last part recaps the overall review. 2. The Concept of Human Security: A Bird s Eye View Since it was launched by the UNDP s Human Development Report (HDR) in 1994, the concept of human security has gained international emphasis and recognition to spread out as a broad development concept (Suhrke, 2014). The HDR definition put two broad aspects of human security: - freedom from fear and freedom from want. The first focuses on protection from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression; while the second stresses on protection from sudden harmful upheavals of daily existence, touching on housing, employment and the like (Sajeev et al., 2003). In late times, the definition of human security however hosts a more debate and discourse than ever before. That is why, Tadjbakhshs (2005) argued that much of the debate and literature on human security, be it critical or supportive, is increasingly produced by scholars and advocates, so that the concept is far from over and remains controversial (Kettemann, 2006), and understandably confused (Owen, 2004). Specifically, the debates have been mired in confusion over what human security is? Is it a concept, a paradigm, a theory or policy framework? (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 4

5 The growing debates and thoughts developed on human security can be grouped as narrower versus broader views. Generally, proponents of the narrower view of human security have sacrificed nonviolent threats for policy utility, whereas proponents of the broader view tend to interpret human security in an all-inclusive perspective for sake of some analytic rigor and policy clarity (Owen, 2004; Owen, 2004; Matta and Takacs, 2015). Nonetheless, the contending views constantly made through the two lines of conceptualization reflect the ongoing reconceptualization and development of human security (Roberts, 2006). In support of this, Kettemann (2006) notes that the competing debates created on human security are an indicative of future developments so far as both the narrower and broader views have been active to make the concept more effective and practical in dealing with contemporary security matters and threats. a) Synopsizing the Narrower versus Broader Views of Human Security Researchers and advocates who argue the narrow dimension of human security assert that the merit of any definition should be judged by its conceptual clarity and policy consequences (Owen, 2004; Roberts, 2006). They have sacrificed nonviolent threats for policy utility and analytic rigor as reasons to focus human security on specific, possibly violent threats. They defend the narrow definition for sake of immediate intervention capability rather than long-term strategic planning for sustainable and secure development (Mack, 2002; MacFarlane and Khong 2006; Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). The narrow formulation will however do little to protect millions of people who die from nonviolent and preventable human security harms and threats, such as environmental hazards, Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 5

6 corruption, structural injustice, economic inequality and political discrimination (Liotta and Owen, 2006). The proponents of the narrower view by far criticize the broader view by arguing as it is too all-encompassing, so that it is hardly capable to analyze and measure all sources and threats of insecurity. In fact, most of the significant policies achieved in the name of human security have used the narrow framework of human security (Owen, 2004; Howard-Hassmann, 2011). On the other hand, as to the proponents of a broader view, human security is a concern with human vulnerability overall and therefore shall encompass all forms of threats from all sources. The advocates of this likewise pinpoint that human security should be seen more than mere safety from violent threats and includes fair and equal access to social services, human rights protection and political plurality. The broader conceptualization has been popularly prompted by UNDP, the European Council and the Barcelona Group, the Commission on Human Security, Government of Japan, as well as by some academia, namely Kaldor (2004), King and Murray (2001), Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy (2007) and Thomas (2000), among others. Some argue human security as a foundational concept (UNDP, 1994), a paradigm (Haq, 1994) and an organizing concept (King and Murray, 2001) (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). Nonetheless, the contending debates and thought made on human security conjointly tells one promising fact that there has been a growing paradigm shift of referent of security from statecentric to individual-centric thinking, perhaps people-centered security thinking which is manifold in composition and agenda (Owen, 2004). b) Optimistic versus Skeptical Arguments on Human Security Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 6

7 Human security is a protective notion of both the individual and the nation at large. It assumes that people are deeply threatened by events beyond their state s control, such climate change, terrorism, drought and immigration (CHS, 2003). It is a necessary, not a sufficient precondition for human development (Liotta and Owen, 2006). As a new and dynamic concept of security, human security promotes individual security as its prime concern and has tremendous policy implication for national and international developments (Kettemann, 2006). In support of this, Fukuda-Parr and Messineo (2012) point out that the usefulness of human security as a regional effort to rethink and redefine common security policy has been used in policy analysis and advocacy as a normative and analytical framework over a number of regional and continental issues, such as climate change, human trafficking and terrorism. Furthermore, as Liotta (2002) argued, the practice of the changing security landscape from statecentric to people-centric perspective has potential utility for contemporary security analysts and policymakers. More importantly, the inclusivity and preventive natures of human security are the potent values that make it a preferable and useful concept. It becomes a concept whose implementation would allow a more preventive and effective response to the threats facing people and communities (Owen, 2004a; Fuentes and Aravena, 2005; Suhrke, 2014). On top of this, Fuentes and Aravena (2005) recognize the usefulness of human security by looking at the humanistic nature of human security which primarily focuses on people, rather than the nation state and multidimensionality that human security needs to oversee both nonviolent and violent threats to security. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 7

8 As it has been hinted earlier, the skeptic arguments and justifications made against to the usefulness of human security are basically rooted on its conceptual all-inclusivity and ambiguity. Some of the skeptics, for example Paris (2001), Newman (2004), Shani (2007) and Chandler (2008), among others, argue that that the concept of human security is too ambiguous, so that it is hardly operationalized and less useful for academician and practitioners. They also argue that human security has failed to prioritize different security issues, such as military and non-military threats. It touches everything and so would have the potential to be nothing that ultimately undermines its effectiveness (Fuentes and Aravena, 2005). Jolly and Ray (2006) further note that human security makes the task of policy formulation nearly impossible as it does not have any definite boundaries, and takes everything as a risk to people security. Another skeptic Chandler (2008) argued that in spite of the widespread use of human security as a concept in international security policy analysis, human security has had little impact on policy outcomes since it labels all potential harms as threats to security. Making causal analysis and subsequent prioritizing actions for intervention remain difficult because security policy makers could hardly prioritize human security s issues and form a clear agenda of feasible and measurable objectives (Paris, 2001). Paris further figure outs that policymakers face different problems in attempting to put human security into practical use, basically on the need to move beyond all-encompassing exhortations and to focus on specific solutions to specific threats, such as violent conflicts, climate change, poverty and the like. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 8

9 3. The Usefulness of the Concept of Human Security: A Critical Reflection Many security scholars who may be labeled as realists have entered the debate around the term, if only to challenge the perceived practicality of it (Roberts, 2006; Tadjbakhsh, 2009). However, the new security thinking had greatest and most popular success with the idea of the broader view that puts non-military threats to security at its core, such as environmental change, human rights violation and bad governance (Owen, 2004b; Howard-Hassmann, 2011). With this regard, Fukuda-Parr and Messineo (2012) argued that due to the progressive values embedded within the concept of human security, its practicability is so promising, and undoubtedly results in policy changes that could improve the welfare of people in a state. At other times, it remains as a working and useful concept to understand and analyze contemporary crises, such as large scale conflicts, climate change, sociopolitical inequalities, structural violence and food insecurity, among others (Kettemann, 2006). The overarching argument for promoting human security claims is to be a moral imperative, analytically useful and practical. Therefore, irrespective of the limiting conceptual factors argued by skeptical realists, it is hardly convincing to overlook the usefulness of the concept contributing to scholars, researchers, experts and policy makers while dealing with contemporary security threats, basically as an alternative analytical approach of security thinking. Thus, the usefulness of the concept of human security can be thoroughly discussed as follows The Usefulness of Human Security as an Idea or a Relatively New Concept of Security Human security represents a new language, a new idea and a new way of thinking in Security Studies and International Relations (Tsai, 2009). It is a concept in motion growing with newly Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 9

10 emerging human needs and international threats (Kettemann, 2006). Needless to mention, human security identifies new threats to well-being, such as environment induced problems, new victims of those threats like displaced peoples, new duties of states, and/or new mechanisms of dealing with threats, including multi-track diplomacy and cooperation (Howard-Hassmann, 2011). It is also working as a unifying and linking concept for a plenty of security problems and determinants of the twenty-first century (Fuentes and Aravena, 2005). In this way, human security considers individuals, not the nation state, as its prime referent of security; and marks a significant conceptual departure in Security Studies and International Relations. Human security challenges traditional concepts, such as national security, territorial integrity and state sovereignty (Kettemann, 2006). It complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development (CHS, 2003). In an abstract but understandable terms, human security allows individuals the pursuit of life, liberty, and both happiness and justice (Liotta and Owen, 2006). Human security puts the individual at the receiving end of all security concerns, and also becomes a potent impression that promotes and sustains stability and progressive integration of individuals within their states, societies, and regions (UNDP, 1994; Alkire, 2003; Floyd, 2007). Although it is true that human security needs further conceptual development and analytical upgrading, it is increasingly being used as a working conceptual and analytical model in various contemporary scholars, researchers and practitioners works and literature because human security is used as an alternative idea to identify and understand non-military threats of security (Thomas and Tow, 2002; Gomez and Gasper, 2013; Thomas and Tow, 2002). In support of this, Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 10

11 Owen (2004) argued that the idea of human security was born out of the understanding that the state can actually fail at its overarching role as protector, so that human security has been contributing a new thinking to almost all aspects of security thinking and acting which had for decades been built around the concept of national security (Howard-Hassmann, 2011). Moreover, Fukuda-Parr and Messineo (2012) added that human security is an important concept in contemporary debates about the world order because it opens up new lines of analysis and gives voice to new actors to deal with security matters. Its value addition in the security field is that it focuses on individuals, and integrates non-military mechanisms as means to deal with security threats, basically as part of the capability approach that supplements the expansionist perspective of human development (CHS, 2003). Cognizant of the above important points and conceptual tenets, it is therefore sound to argue that human security is a useful concept that helps intellectuals, policy makers and security institutions to rethink security in a wider perspective. In support of this, Fukuda-Parr and Messineo (2012) further stated that human security offers alternative definitions of security currently in circulation. It becomes a practical concept seeks to protect people against a broad range of threats to individuals and communities and further empower them to act on their own behalf (CHS, 2003) The Usefulness of Human Security as an Analytical Theory of Security Theory is an organized way of thinking, which helps to explain and present events in a systematic way of understanding (Walby, 2007). Most, possibly all theories in social science fields are dynamic in nature as they are constantly under thesis- antithesis-synthesis Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 11

12 formulations. But despite this dynamic feature, many of them, for example Marxism, realism, idealism, etc., are useful and operative to understand and analyze sociopolitical issues and contexts, and offer theoretical values for intellectuals, researchers and practitioners. Likewise, human security, as an emerging theory of security, is increasingly used as a systematic and critical theory to study security matters in International Relations and Security Studies (Werthes and Bosold, 2005). In addition, human security theory overrides the state-centric (popularly called realism) theory of security as insufficient to explain emerging and non-military threats to security (Endson, 2001; Alkire, 2003; Liotta and Owen, 2006). The realist view is currently perceived as traditional theory of security because it solely concentrates on a state s military and power mighty to secure sovereignty with prime referent object of the state, not individuals (Baldwin, 1997; King and Murray, 2001; Thomas and Tow, 2002; Matthew and Fraser, 2002; Sanjeev et al., 2003; Tsai, 2009). It is this fact that worried academia and practitioners to look for alternative theory of security, so that academic institutions begun to offer degree programs in human security aiming at broadening up security consciousness and analysis beyond the usual understanding of national security (Tadjbakhsh, 2005). Furthermore, human security is used as a working theoretical approach by different scholars, experts and practitioners while they explain issues related to human rights, environmental change, conflict, peace and development. For instance, environmental change scholars are leaning on tenants of human security theory to explain the causes and effects of environmental insecurity (Matthew and Fraser, 2002). Kettemann, an expert in human rights and international Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 12

13 law, also argues that a human security theory propels legal analysts to move beyond mere legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of inequality and violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's global settings (Kettemann, 2006). Human security is a flexible theoretical approach that can be tailored to different contexts and topics. For instance, in Political Science it quests for power sharing and just political system. No matter which topic is addressed, a guiding principle of the human security approach is that it requires understanding the particular threats experienced by particular groups of people, as well as the participation of those people in the analysis process (Gomez and Gasper, 2013). For example, in political election that many countries face problems with, human security theory tries to analyze the extent to which that election was/is free and fair for citizens of a state. It also generates fresh insights since it pursues a holistic methodology of looking at specific people s vulnerabilities with an eye for interconnections and intersections. The core of human security is viewed as the vulnerability of individuals and thus the theory aims to protect those who are most vulnerable, such as children and women. Its potential value lies in streamlining international justice through a general normative perspective, which, at least in theory, can create more coherent laws and policies option (Werthes and Bosold, 2005). Human security as a paradigmatic theory proclaims that the primary threats to be dealt were no longer the military forces; rather non-military threats, such as economic failure, violation of human rights, political discrimination and environmental changes, are among the prime concerns to be addressed. It encourages comprehensive measures which can be applied to threats that affect the everyday lives of people. For that reason, Mclntosh (2010) argues that human security Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 13

14 approach provides a language and rationale for taking into account the concerns of the majority of humanity. Human security enables individuals and pushes actors to respond to change by reducing vulnerability or/and challenging multifaceted causes of non-military threats (Howard-Hassmann, 2011). Owen (2004a) added that human security as a theoretical approach and a policy mandate is not necessarily incompatible, and hence the theory and policy of human security are surely better together than apart. Owen further suggested that human security could theoretically provide a useful scholarship for academicians and researchers to explain and predict emerging security matters from broader perspective, and offers a critical distancing for traditional thinkers to analyze security far beyond state-centric paradigm of security The Usefulness of Human Security as an Analytical and Normative Framework As Dickinson and Prabhaker (2009) well explained, the purpose of any analytical framework is to give a study a systematic evaluation of context understudy, and enable the researcher to reach on a conclusion that could foresee plausible policy implications. Likewise, human security as an analytical framework helps researchers, practitioners and policy makers to use it as a comprehensive outline while exploring and analyzing security issues and threats (Alkire, 2003; Owen, 2004a). In other words, it enables intellectuals and practitioners to analyze security from broader perspective, so that it becomes analytically a useful framework (Howard-Hassmann, 2011; Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). In this way, it expands the scope of security analysis and policy design in multiple directions, basically to explain causes and effects of insecurity being Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 14

15 overlooked by the traditional security framework territorial security that has been palpably argued in the works of Gomez and Gasper (2013) and Thomas and Tow (2002). The UN (2014) views that the application of a human security framework offers a wide-ranging guideline that combines top-down norms, processes and institutions with a bottom-up focus in which participatory processes support the important role of people as actors in defining and implementing their essential freedoms. It is for such inclusiveness that human security is regarded as a comprehensive framework and imperative analytical tool for preventing threats and exploring options aimed at mitigating threats to people insecurity, and thus becomes a central goal of policy recommendations and actions (Jolly and Ray, 2006). The practical use of human security further provides key insights even for institutions that undertake to act on security concerns as an analytical and a normative framework (Alkire, 2003). It is important to note that human security entails an ethical and a normative dimension helps practitioners to consider internationally prescribed frameworks while they analyze security issues (Fuentes and Aravena, 2005; Matta and Takacs, 2015). For instance, international legal experts, example Kettemann, argue that introducing human security as a practical framework in international normative processes leads to and has indeed resulted in procedural changes in drafting international norms and laws. It also stands for the involvement of individuals in developing new international normative instruments (Kettemann, 2006). He eventually concludes that human security can be seen as a value-based and people-centered framework to security. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 15

16 The core and normative principles of human security were initially reflected in the UN approach to security and development while attempting to integrate freedom from want and freedom from fear into a more coherent and human-centered framework (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). Floyd (2007) also argues that the normative and analytical dimension of human security framework offers a remarkable utility in dealing with contemporary crises and political instabilities in which many countries have faced. Furthermore, human security is currently severing as a suitable framework for international cooperation since it encompasses common values and goals, such as human rights and development, and highlights the importance of coherent and holistic approaches to development (Liotta and Owen, 2006). Tadjbakhsh (2009) adds that human security is more effective as a broad flexible framework rather than being codified in rigorous terms. It can serve as a means to evaluate threats, foresee crises, analyze the cause of discord and propose solutions entailing a redistribution of responsibilities. The initiatives to institutionalize human security as a comprehensive framework for international security in the UN agencies such as UNDP and UNESCO till need joint cooperation and effective monitoring guideline to be more useful and practical, above all on the need to resolve contemporary threats to security, such as structural violence, human rights violation and food insecurity (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012) The Usefulness of Human Security as an Institutional Policy Apparatus As it is noted earlier, the conceptual shift of security from state-centric to people-centric thinking has resulted with tremendous policy implications. It brings new vulnerabilities, measures and actions as priorities for global securities that were not on the international and collective security Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 16

17 agendas (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). One of the defining characteristic of which human security manifests is its policy relevance and its desire to change security policy in a progressive way. It becomes a form of forward defense against common threats to humanity (Heinbecker 2000; Howard-Hassmann, 2011). In this way, the concept of human security has been receiving more attention from key global development institutions and different international communities (CHS, 2003; Fuentes and Aravena, 2005; Tsai, 2009). As a pioneering step, the UNDP, in its 1994 HDP report, formulated a broader human security policy and attempted to promote international common interest as the basis for the establishment of a human-oriented international policy (Jolly and Ray, 2006). More recently, human security is increasingly used as a working policy to fit with institutional interest and policy advocacy by regional and international communities on a broader range of contemporary issues, such as human rights violation, migration and environmental change (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). It further extends security sideways to nongovernmental organizations and to public opinion (Rothschild 1995; Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). For instance, the Study Group on Europe s Security Capabilities, known as the Barcelona Group proposed human security as a doctrine for European security policy. For this group, human security refers to freedom for individuals from basic insecurities caused by gross human rights violations (Tamminen, 2008). Parallel to the potential policy implications human security provides for multiplicity of regional and international institutions, in recent times, different governments and NGOs have begun to use the concept for different purposes, such as for agenda setting, advocacy and policy analysis Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 17

18 as an analytical framework for evaluating the state of the world and proposing appropriate policy priorities (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). In support of this, Gasper (2010) notes that numerous national and international institutions and civil societies find the concept of human security useful because of its policy utility plays to provide a shared language; highlight a new focus in investigation; guide policy evaluations and analysis; and motivate practical actions The Usefulness of Human Security as a Political Instrument Since the time of publication of the Human Development Report in 1994 with a plethora elements of human security, progressive efforts have been undertaking to refine the very concept of human security through research and expert meetings to put it as a core political agenda both at the national and international levels to respond to the needs and concerns of vulnerable populations, such as children and women (Fuentes and Aravena, 2005). Thus, the concept has increasingly gained importance in the national political agendas, and has been widely mainstreamed into policy design and implementation efforts of the international communities (Owen, 2004b; Suhrke, 2014). In support of this, Cilliers (2004) noted that the concept of human security imposes an obligation on the state to provide a facilitating environment for equality and individual participation through democracy, adherence to human rights and the participation of civil society. Human security serves as a working political tool due to its appropriate emphasis and human agendas which are considered to be relevant in relation to people s safety, especially in postconflict situations and socio-economically difficult conditions (Kettemann, 2006). It becomes a vigorous leitmotif for addressing widespread and cross-cutting threats facing governments and Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 18

19 people, such as terrorism, climate change, political discrimination, gender inequality and injustices. For this reason, countries like Canada and Japan have applied the concept of human security as a guiding principle to articulate their internal and foreign policies (Fuentes and Aravena, 2005). Thus, the concept has been a rational political response to both national and international policy as it pushes international actors and governments to take measures on a wider mandate than simply economic growth and political stability at various scales (Owen, 2004a). Human security forms an important part of people s well-being, and is therefore an objective of political development. It is this rationale that governments of Japan, Norway and Canada could inspire them to take a plethora of political initiatives to promote the concept and institutionalize it within the UN security framework (Fukuda-Parr and Messineo, 2012). In these countries, human security as a foreign policy doctrine has become an opportunity to gain greater independence vis-à-vis international institutions, greater influence in the United Nations, and increase credibility on the international stage, particularly in the case of Canada and Japan vis-àvis the United States (Tadjbakhsh, 2009). Likewise, as Owen (2004a) well noted, human security is a political motif that has multiple political utility since it focuses primarily on issues affecting the most people, and gives political voice to the otherwise politically marginalized. At times, human security as a political instrument promotes to strengthen actions taken by governments and other actors in support of human security agendas. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 19

20 4. Concluding Remarks Even if there have been arguments pessimistically made on the usefulness of the concept of human security, this essay has critically reflected on the imperatives and practical uses of human security as an idea, a theory and practice. Thus, the paper concludes that human security is a useful concept as a relatively new idea, a flexible theory, an analytical framework, operative institutional policy and a political instrument in contemporary politics and security matters. As it has been slightly made the point that most social science concepts, such as democracy, conflict resolution, positive peace and human security, among others, are value-laden which could be subjectively interpreted in different contexts and differently by different individuals, scholars and practitioners. Thus, unless any academia or practitioner considered the subjective and multi-meaning nature of social science concepts into account in his/her social science work, possibly research, it would be hardly convincing to analyze the concepts as simple and measurable as those hard science terminologies. Underlined this, one couldn t dire to undermine social science concepts, like human security because they have different meanings and implications indifferent contexts, but the case in some skeptical works is otherwise. Because, some skeptics, notably Paris (2001), who may be labeled themselves as realists argue against to the usefulness of human security when they overlooked, perhaps denied the multi-meaning and divergent implication of human security as an emerging and underdeveloped social science concept in International Relation and Security Studies. For this reason, Paris entirely argues that human security has limited usefulness for academician and policy makers as it lacks precise definition or conceptual clarity. However, as to the very Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 20

21 argument of which this paper critically and systematically reviewed and discussed, the usefulness of human security is overriding beyond its conceptual ambiguity. It is practically useful as an alternative concept, a comprehensive theory and an analytical framework of security in the fields of International Relations, Peace and Conflict Studies and Security Studies, among others. Human security as a relatively new idea of security growingly serves as an alternative concept contributing to widen up the conceptual discourses about and discussions on security in lieu of mere focused on the traditional thinking through territorial security. As an idea, it further helps to understand non-military threats that the old concept of security, state or territorial security, overlooked for long times. Human security becomes a useful concept that gives due priority for individual security in national and international structures. In this way, it progressively encourages a leap of consciousness in security thinking all over the world. To summarize, as a relatively new construct, human security is both a practical and useful alternative framework to more traditional notions of national security, a comprehensive theory and an analytical framework that provides a suitable approach to develop a common understanding of security and uphold global security and international cooperation. In addition, human security theoretically helps academicians, experts and practitioners to enrich and broaden their scope of analysis while explaining and analyzing multidimensional sources and threats to security. It excels scholarship values and optimizes critical exploration and explanation of security. It can be operationally seen as a value-based and people-centered framework to security thinking since it gives prior concern for the people, not the territory. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 21

22 It is this conceptual, theoretical and analytical usefulness of the concept of human security that increasingly attracted different security scholars, international organizations, civil societies and state governments to adhere the concept as a plausible framework of security thinking. Thus, it is not excessive to bold up the very argument of this paper that the concept of human security is a useful concept to understand and analyze threats, resolve core problems underlying potential threats, and ultimately to develop protective measures on and actions to human security threats in contemporary politics. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 22

23 References 1. Alkire, S. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. Oxford: University of Oxford. 2. Bajpai, K. (2000). Human Security: Concept and Measurement. New Delhi: Kroc Institute. 3. Baldwin, D. (1997). The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, pp Bastow, S et al. (2010). The Impact of Social Sciences: How Academics and their Research Make a Difference. Los Angeles: SAGE Publication. 5. Bellamy, A & Mcdonald, M. (2002). The Utility of Human Security: Which Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas & Tow, Security Dialogue. Sage Publications, Vol. 33(3), pp Burgess, P. (2007). Non-Military Security Challenges: Contemporary Security and Strategy. London: Palgrave. 7. Chandler, D. (2008). Human Security II: Waiting for the Tail to Wag the Dog, a Rejoinder to Ambrosetti, Owen and Wibben. Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, pp CHS (Commission on Human Security). (2003). Human Security Now. New York. UN Commission on Human Security. 9. Cilliers, J. (2004). Human Security in Africa: A Conceptual Framework for Review. NP: The African Human Security Initiative (AHSI). 10. Debiel, T. (2005). Mainstreaming Human Security: Concepts and Implications for Development. Berlin: INEF. 11. Dickinson, S & Prabhakar, M. (2009). An Analytical Framework for Community Empowerment Evaluations. London: Queens Printer. 12. Edson, S. (2001). Human Security: An Extended and Annotated International Bibliography. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 23

24 13. Floyd, R. (2007). Human Security and the Copenhagen School s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move. Human Security Journal, Vol Fuentes, C & Aravena, F. (2005). Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks in Latin America and the Caribbean. NP: UNESCO. 15. Fukuda-Parr, S & Messineo, C. (2012). Human Security: A Critical Review of the Literature. A Working Paper No. 11, Centre for Research on Peace and Development (CRPD). Belgium: Leuven. 16. Gasper, D. (2010). The Idea of Human Security, in O Brien, A and Kristoffersen, C (eds.), Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 17. Gómez, O & Gasper, D. (2013). Human Security: A Thematic Guidance Note for Regional and National Human Development Report Teams. NP: UNDP. 18. Hampson, F. (2008). Human Security. In Williams, P. (2008). Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: Rout ledge. 19. Haq, M. (1994). New Imperatives of Human Security: Barbara Ward Lecture Journal of Development, Vol. 2, pp Heinbecker, P. (2000). Human Security: the Hard Edge. Canadian Military Journal (spring): Howard-Hassmann, R. (2011). Human Security: Undermining Human Rights? Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University. 22. Hussein, K et al. (2004). Security and Human Security: An Overview of Concepts and Initiatives: What Implies for West Africa. Paris: Andre Pascal. 23. Jolly, R & Ray, D. (2006). The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports: A Review of Experiences and Current Debates. NP: UNDP. 24. Kaldor, M. (2004). A Force for Intervention: A Human Security Doctrine for Europe and Beyond. International Herald Tribune, Sept. 30. Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 24

25 25. Kettemann, M. (2006). The Conceptual Debate on Human Security and Its Relevance for the Development of International Law. Human Security Perspectives, Vol 1 (3), pp King, G & Murray, C. (2001). Rethinking Human Security. Political Science Quarterly, Vol, 116 (4), pp Liotta, P & Owen, T. (2006). Why Human Security? The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, Vol. 7 (1), pp Liotta, P. (2002). Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security. Security Dialogue, Vol. 33(4), pp Liotta, P et al. (2008). (Ed.). Environmental Change and Human security: Recognizing and Acting on Hazard Impacts. Netherlands: Springer. 30. MacFarlane, N & Khong Y. (2006). Human Security and the UN: A Critical History. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. 31. Mack, A (2002). A Report on the Feasibility of Creating an Annual Human Security Report: Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 32. Mathew, R. & Fraser, L. (2002). Global Environmental Change and Human Security: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Irvine: University of California Press. 33. Matta, A & Takács, T. (Eds) (2015) Human Security as a Tool for Comprehensive Approach for Human Rights and Security Linkages. The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Institute. 34. Mclntosh, M. (2010). Perspectives on Human Security: The Emergent Construct. Australia: Greenleaf Publishing. 35. Newman, E. (2004). A Normatively Attractive but Analytically Weak Concept. Security Dialogue, Vol. 35 (3), pp Owen, T. (2004) Human Security Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition. Security Dialogue, Vol. 35 (3), pp Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 25

26 37. Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, Vol. 26 (2), pp Roberts, D. (2006). Human Security or Human Insecurity? Moving the Debate Forward. Security Dialogue Vol. 37 (2), pp Rothschild, E (1995). What is Security? Daedalus Vol. 124 (3), pp Sanjeev, K et al. (2003). From the Environment and Human Security to Sustainable Security and Development. Harvard: Car fax Publishing. 41. Shani, G. (2007). Introduction, in Sato, M and Pasha, M (eds.) Protecting Human Security in a Post 9/11 World: Critical and Global Insights. London: Palgrave. 42. Shinoda, H. (2004). The Concept of Human Security: Historical and Theoretical Implications. NP: IPSHU. 43. Suhrke, A. (2014 ). Human Security 15 Years after Lysøen: The Case against Drone Killings. Asian Journal of Peace building Vol. 2 (2), pp Tadjbakhsh, S & Chenoy, A. (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Abingdon: Routledge. 45. Tadjbakhsh, S. (2005). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Afghanistan: Les Etudes. 46. Tadjbakhsh, S. (2009). Human Security: Looking Back Before Looking Forward. A Paper presented at ICHSWA Conference Birjand, Iran November 26th Tamminen, T. (2008). Human Security in Post-Status Kosovo: A Shared European Responsibility. Finland Civilian Crisis Management Studies, Vol. 1, pp Thomas, C. (2001). Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the Links. Third World Quarterly Vol. 22 (2), pp Thomas, C. (2000). Global Governance, Development and Human Security. London: Pluto Publication. 50. Thomas, N & Tow, W. (2002). The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention. Security Dialogue, Vol. 33 (2), pp Tsai, Y. (2009). The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View. International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 14 (2), pp Girmay abraha, gebreslassie kiros hailu Page 26