Second UNESCO Forum on Global Citizenship Education: Building Peaceful and Su...
Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences – FLACSO book
1. Promoting Human Security:
Ethical, Normative
and Educational Frameworks
in Latin America and the Caribbean
PromotingHumanSecurity:Ethical,NormativeandEducationalFrameworksinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean
4. Promoting Human Security:
Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks
in Latin America and the Caribbean
Claudia F. Fuentes
Francisco Rojas Aravena
(Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences – FLACSO)
5. Contents
Foreword by Ms Moufida Goucha
Promoting human security: from concept to action 9
Introduction 13
Acknowledgements from the authors 17
Part One 19
A new international context 19
Latin America and the Caribbean 22
Part Two 25
Human security: debating the concept 25
(a) Commission on Human Security 26
(b) International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty 28
(c) Origins of the human security concept: UNDP report 30
(d) International organizations and human security 32
(e) Countries promoting the concept of Human Security
and the Network 34
(i) Canada 35
(ii) Japan 36
(iii) Human Security Network 37
Part Three 41
Hemispheric initiatives 41
Part Four 47
Strengths and weaknesses of the concept of human security 47
5
6. Part Five 51
Human security: a unifying and linking concept 51
a) The security triad 52
b) Broadening the concept of security and violence 55
Part Six 59
Ethical and normative dimensions of human security 59
(a) Ethical aspects of human security 59
(b) Normative dimension of human security 61
(c) Treaties, conventions and other binding instruments
dealing with human security 63
Part Seven 93
Principal threats to human security in Latin America 93
1 Socio-economic vulnerabilities 95
(a) Growth and economic crises 95
(b) The steady rise in external debt 98
(c) Rising unemployment 99
(d) Marginal improvement in human development 103
(e) Rising poverty and income inequality 105
(f) Rising social inequality 108
(g) Public-sector social spending and poverty 110
(h) Health 114
2 Social integration and vulnerability 118
(a) Migration and human security 118
(b) Indigenous peoples and multiculturalism 130
(c) Technology and social integration: internet, politics
and human security 131
3 Politico-institutional vulnerabilities: weak democracies 136
(a) Recurrent crises 137
(b) Low-density democracies 139
6
7. (c) Corruption exacerbates politico-institutional
vulnerability 140
(d) Crisis of representation 142
(e) Public perceptions 143
4 International security vulnerabilities (traditional) 147
(a) Inter-state conflicts 147
(b) Unresolved border conflicts 147
(c) Transnational security threats 148
(i) Drug trafficking: a multilateral problem 149
(ii) Money laundering 152
(iii) Terrorism: worldwide cooperation to prevent it 153
(iv) Light arms trafficking: a multilateral problem 154
(v) Colombia: high levels of human insecurity 157
5 Internal security vulnerabilities 158
(a) Social violence and crime 158
(b) Institutionalized violence 163
6 Environmental vulnerabilities 165
Part Eight 169
Empowerment for human security 169
Recommendations 177
Bibliography 181
Appendices 191
A brief introduction to the authors: Claudia F. Fuentes
and Francisco Rojas Aravena (Latin American Faculty of Social
Sciences – FLACSO) 193
7
8. Final recommendations of the First International Meeting
of Directors of Peace Research and Training Institutions
on the theme ‘What Agenda for Human Security
in the Twenty-first Century?’ 195
Some UNESCO publications on Human Security, Peace
and Conflict Prevention 201
8
9. Promoting human security:
from concept to action
During the last decade, human security has become a
central concern to many countries, institutions and social actors
searching for innovative ways and means of tackling the many
non-military threats to peace and security. Indeed, human
security underlines the complex links, often ignored or
underestimated, between disarmament, human rights and
development. Today, in an increasingly globalized world, the
most pernicious threats to human security emanate from the
conditions that give rise to genocide, civil war, human rights
violations, global epidemics, environmental degradation, forced
and slave labour, and malnutrition. All the current studies on
security thus have to integrate the human dimension of security.
Thus, since the publication of the United Nations
Development Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report on
new dimensions of human security, major efforts have been
undertaken to refine the very concept of human security through
research and expert meetings, to put human security at the core
of the political agenda at both national and regional levels and,
most important of all, to engage in innovative action in the field
to respond to the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable
populations. Two landmarks in this process were the creation of
the Human Security Network in 1999, made up of twelve
countries from all regions, which holds ministerial meetings
every year, and the publication of the 2003 report of the
Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now:
Protecting and Empowering People, which has called for a global
initiative to promote human security.
UNESCO has been closely associated with these efforts
from the outset, in particular in the framework of its action
9
10. aimed at promoting a culture of peace. Thus, as of 1994, the
Organization launched a series of regional and national projects
relating to the promotion of a new concept of security, ensuring
the participation of regional, national and local institutions, and
involving a wide array of actors, including the armed forces, in
Central America and Africa.
On the basis of the experience acquired through the
implementation of those projects, human security became a
central concern for the Organization as a whole. A plan of action
for the promotion of human security at the regional level was
adopted in 2000, as a result of the deliberations of the First
International Meeting of Directors of Peace Research and
Training Institutions on the theme ‘What Agenda for Human
Security in the Twenty-first Century?’, held at UNESCO
Headquarters; and in 2002 human security became one of the
Organization’s twelve strategic objectives as reflected in its
Medium-Term Strategy for 2002–2007. This strategic objective is
closely linked to UNESCO’s contribution to the eradication of
poverty, in particular extreme poverty, to the promotion of
human rights, as well as to its action in the field of natural
sciences, in particular regarding the prevention of conflicts
relating to the use of water resources.
The choice of adopting regional approaches to human
security has been most fruitful to date. In Africa, UNESCO, in
close cooperation with the Institute for Security Studies of South
Africa and the African Union, has initiated action aiming at the
formulation of a regional human security agenda, addressing
conflict prevention and many of the issues raised in the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative, which
UNESCO has fully supported from its inception. In Latin
America, cooperation with FLACSO-Chile in 2001–03 led to
important discussions of human security issues in the region, and
to the formulation of policy recommendations that have been
submitted to the ministerial meetings of the Human Security
Network and to regional intergovernmental meetings on
10
11. hemispheric security. In East Asia, building on important
progress made by subregional academic and political institutions,
UNESCO, in collaboration with the Korean National
Commission for UNESCO and Korea University, organized the
2003 meeting on Human Security in East Asia, whose results
were widely disseminated. After the International Conference on
Human Security in the Arab States, jointly organized by
UNESCO and the Regional Human Security Center in Amman
(Jordan), in March 2005, UNESCO will be developing similar
projects in Central and South-East Asia in 2005, to conclude
with Africa and Eastern Europe in 2006.
With a view to opening new perspectives for focused
research, adequate training, preparation of pilot projects, and to
further consolidate public policy and public awareness on human
security issues, UNESCO is launching a new series of publications:
Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational
Frameworks. These will emphasize three important elements in
order to translate the concept of human security into action: (a)
the need to have a solid ethical foundation, based on shared values,
leading to the commitment to protect human dignity which lies at
the very core of human security; (b) buttressing that ethical
dimension by placing existing and new normative instruments at the
service of human security, in particular by ensuring the full
implementation of instruments relating to the protection of
human rights; and (c) the need to reinforce the education and
training component by better articulating and giving enhanced
coherence to all ongoing efforts, focusing on issues such as
education for peace and sustainable development, training in human
rights and enlarging the democratic agenda to human security issues.
We hope that the new series – each publication focusing
on a specific region – will contribute to laying the foundations of
an in-depth and sustained action for the promotion of human
security, in which the individual has a key role to play.
Moufida Goucha
11
12. Introduction
This report analyses the debate that is taking place both
internationally and regionally on the subject of human security,
and evaluates the main threats to personal security in the
countries of Latin America.
The main conceptual approaches to human security are
associated with two substantial reports: Human Security Now,
from the Commission on Human Security (CHS, 2003), and
The Responsibility to Protect, from the International Commission
on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS, 2001). The first of
these develops the concept of human security from the point of
view of the protection of individuals’ vital freedoms and proposes
a series of tools and programmes of action for applying policies
based on the protection and empowerment of individuals. The
second report basically concentrates on humanitarian
intervention, stressing the responsibility of the international
community towards populations whose human rights have been
seriously infringed.
The 1994 UNDP report is also an important precedent
because of its contribution to defining the scope of human
security.
As regards international action, UNESCO believes that it
is essential to promote human security as part of its Medium-
Term Strategy for 2002–2007, in accordance with its mandate in
the spheres of education, science, culture, communication and
information. Since the late 1990s, and particularly since the First
International Meeting of Directors of Peace Research and
Training Institutions (Paris, November 2000), UNESCO has
been carrying out regional consultations with a view to
developing a series of ethical, normative and educational
frameworks to promote human security and conflict prevention
13
13. in cooperation with governments, non-governmental
organizations and local academic centres. In UNESCO’s
judgement, the idea of human security is an essential element in
the establishment of a common platform of action to raise
awareness of the most critical threats among all those affected,
centring on the interests of populations and particularly the most
vulnerable segments of them.
Meanwhile, an informal partnership of countries with an
ambitious programme in this area, the Human Security
Network, has made substantial progress with its goal of banning
the use of anti-personnel mines and ultimately of eradicating
them. Chile is the only Latin American country to participate in
this partnership, and it has included this perspective in its foreign
policy.
At the hemispheric level, chiefly through the Summits of
the Americas and under the auspices of the Organization of
American States (OAS), a number of initiatives have been taken
to construct a shared concept of security for the countries of the
region that incorporates the dimensions affecting the security of
individuals within the framework of this broader debate. The
Bridgetown Declaration, adopted by the OAS General Assembly
in Barbados in 1992, is one of the most important developments
here, as it incorporates a multidimensional approach to
hemispheric security. The next Special Conference on Security,
which will be held in Mexico, will give the countries of the
hemisphere an opportunity to consolidate a broader vision of
security with a view to establishing an inter-American charter of
hemispheric security.
This report presents a survey of all the treaties,
conventions and binding instruments acceded to by the countries
of Latin America and the Caribbean that have a bearing on
human security in the political, socio-economic, international
security, environmental and cultural spheres.
Analysis of the conceptual debate and the incipient
implementation of the concept of human security at the national
14
14. and regional levels reveals the strong and weak points of this
outlook. Among the strong points are inclusiveness,
multidimensionality and the stress on multilateralism and
cooperation, factors that make human security a concept whose
implementation would allow a more effective response to the
threats facing people and communities. This concept also has an
important ethical and normative dimension, grounded in
international law and priority for human rights.
As regards the limitations of the concept, two factors are
of particular importance for Latin American countries – the
difficulty of focusing on core interests and priorities owing to the
breadth of the human security field, and the problem of
including security issues in development plans and programmes.
The report suggests that to deal with these shortcomings in the
Latin American context, attention should be focused on two
issues: (a) the need to establish in practical and operational terms
the relationship between national security, international security
and human security; (b) the use of violence as a determinant for
analysis. For this it is necessary to consider the conditions that
pave the way for violence, the protagonists, and the measures that
could prevent violence and one of its extreme manifestations,
humanitarian crises.
Lastly, the report delineates and examines six essential
areas where threats to human security could arise: (1) socio-
economic vulnerabilities, (2) social integration, (3) political and
institutional weaknesses, (4) international security, (5) internal
security, (6) environmental risks. In the case of Latin America,
the main threats to human security arise from a number of
circumstances, in particular the weakness of democracy, the rise
of poverty and inequity and, increasingly, urban violence and
crime.
15
15. Acknowledgements from the authors
This document was prepared at the request of UNESCO
by the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO)*,
and in particular by its Secretary-General, Francisco Rojas
Aravena and the Director of the FLACSO-Chile Human
Security Programme, Claudia F. Fuentes Julio, and presented as
part of the meeting ‘Seguridad Internacional Contemporánea:
Consecuencias para la Seguridad Humana en América Latina’
(Santiago, Chile, August 2003).
The authors of this study wish to thank the following
FLACSO-Chile staff for their contributions: Rodrigo Araya,
Grecia Bate, Claudio Fuentes S., Jorge Guzmán, Carolina
Stefoni, Rodrigo Vera, Carlos Vergara, and Andrés Villar.
17
* The Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) is an independent
international organization, regional in nature, that works to promote the social
sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean through research, technical
cooperation and postgraduate training.
16. Part One
A new international context
Freedom from fear is the security objective laid down by
the United Nations in its Millennium Report (United Nations,
2000b). Achieving this will involve a recognition that the
international system has changed fundamentally in recent years
and that in the process a clear need has arisen to develop
innovative approaches and perspectives so that we can grasp these
changes and respond to new challenges. The main characteristics
defining the international system for over half a century were
transformed by the breakdown of the bipolar order. Furthermore,
changes in state capabilities and their effects on related matters
such as sovereignty are having repercussions on structural aspects
and on the attitudes of international actors and the way these are
regarded.
During the Cold War, concepts of security mainly related
to the state, and the viewpoint was primarily a military one. At
the present time, a transition can be observed towards a broader
concept of security whose objectives are peace, international
stability and protection for individuals and communities. Since
the mid-1990s we have seen the concept of human security,
which emphasizes the protection of individuals, coming strongly
to the fore.
One of the changes that has most influenced the
development of the human security concept is the new nature of
conflicts around the world, most of which take place within
states. In the ten years following the end of the Cold War there
were 103 armed conflicts, of which 93 were internal; in these,
19
17. 90 per cent of the victims were civilians. This development has
modified the main international actors’ perception of tension and
conflict situations and, at a more general level, of concepts
relating to security.
The concept of security has evolved, coming to centre
more on individuals, because it has been understood that security
does not depend only on the armed forces of each state.
International agreements, the opening up of economies to nearby
countries, increasing interdependence, and even the awareness of
mutual vulnerability affect the security of individuals and the
state.
Another of the factors that has contributed to this change
in outlook where security is concerned is the complexity of global
problems and their repercussions for millions of people. There
are now threats very different from that of a military attack
against one’s homeland, including environmental risks,
international crime, drug trafficking and terrorism. All this
entails far-reaching changes in the basic idea of sovereignty and
shows that national capabilities are inadequate to deal with the
main problems. The new international context is changing the
scale of problems that used to be wholly national in character,
requiring a new international system where only the ability to
pool forces will restore to states the ability to generate, jointly
with other actors, a legitimate order that can satisfy the demands
arising at the national, regional and world levels.
To sum up, the main changes and tendencies in the
international system that are influencing the way we observe and
analyse the new security challenges, and that have given rise to a
conceptualization which highlights the protection of individuals,
are associated principally with the following structural and
international factors:
• The end of bipolar conflict with the breakdown of the
Soviet Union. This removed the context within which policy-
making took place for half a century. The communism/anti-
20
18. communism conflict has retained its momentum in some regions
but has ceased to be pivotal at the world level.
• The impact of globalization in different areas, and
interdependence. What characterized international relations was
the differentiation between the national and international
spheres, and this is tending to disappear with globalization. In
the global–local chain of cause and effect, the national level is
often not present even as an intermediary. There has also been a
change in the dimensions of time and space affecting policy-
making, response times and the scale of events.
• New international actors. New transnational actors are
making a forceful appearance in the new context. Not only are
multinational/transnational companies acquiring new
capabilities in the conditions of globalization, but so are non-
governmental organizations. The increasingly important role
being played by individuals and their views in the form of global
‘public opinion’ is a potent factor in the new international
architecture.
• New power relationships. The consolidation of the United
States as a hegemonic power is translating into growing
unilateralism and difficulties with multilateral policy
coordination.
• New threats to security. Non-traditional security threats
are appearing, most of them transnational and non-military in
character. Examples include drug trafficking, money laundering
and organized crime.
• Development gaps. There are major difficulties in
overcoming poverty and serious imbalances and inequalities in
the distribution of economic resources and in national, regional
and international decision-making.
The main international factors are as follows:
• Loss of state capabilities. This factor relates to changes in
sovereignty. The case of world finance most clearly illustrates
states’ increasing inability to control international flows.
Similarly, the new global context is altering the scale of issues that
21
19. formerly had an exclusively national character but that are now
part of a new international system which demands responses that
are global in scope and include both state and non-state actors.
This is the case with the environment.
• Increase in intra-national conflicts. Inter-state conflicts are
tending to diminish and internal conflicts to increase. The
victims of the latter are mainly civilians.
Latin America and the Caribbean
The end of the Cold War coincided with democratization
and pacification in certain countries of South and Central
America. These developments, along with the resolution of
territorial and border conflicts between states, opened a new
chapter in the way security was evaluated in the region and in the
priorities set, given the emergence of new needs and challenges.
For most Latin American countries, the new security
agenda now focuses on intra-state problems. Personal security is
being quite seriously threatened by the rise in both organized and
non-organized crime, and by rising social tensions caused by
persistent and increasing poverty in the region. The Secretary-
General of the United Nations (Annan, 2003) has stated that
Colombia, Guatemala and Haiti are the countries that most need
the attention and support of the international community if they
are to resolve their conflicts peacefully. Concerning Colombia, he
noted that international efforts to achieve an agreement had been
inadequate and the civilian population of that country had been
subjected to serious violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law. In Guatemala, the United Nations still
maintains a Verification Mission to oversee compliance with the
peace agreements, established in 1996, which has observed a rise
in social conflict and in the poverty indices, as well as growing
22
20. militarization. Lastly, the Secretary-General saw the
establishment of the United Nations special mission in Haiti as a
positive step, the priority objectives of this mission being the
promotion of personal security, human rights and good
government.
When considering the new security situation in the
Americas, a number of tendencies need to be taken into account:
• Latin America has not consolidated a disarmament policy
in relation to weapons of mass destruction. In this area there is still
a need to improve policies and, in particular, to generate efficient
verification mechanisms.
• The military spending of Latin America and the Caribbean
is low by comparison with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the
region does not have modern strategic weapons. To consolidate a
tendency towards lower military spending it is necessary for
policy-makers to achieve progress with transparency, verification
and the development of a second phase of confidence-building
measures.
• Latin America and the Caribbean has had, and still has, a
marginal position in global strategic affairs, and no change is in
prospect. At the same time, there are few inter-state conflicts in
Latin America and, isolated outbreaks notwithstanding, disputes
between states have remained largely unmilitarized.
• Internal conflicts. Latin America and the Caribbean is a
region with a high index of intra-national conflict, where
violence plays a major role and affects perceptions of security
even beyond the borders of each state.
• International security institutions are weak in Latin
America and the Caribbean. This results in a lack of coordination
and missed opportunities both for dialogue with the United
States and for the development of home-grown policies to
support tendencies towards peace and stability in the region.
• The United States was the main actor in the region and
hemisphere during the Cold War, and still is. That country
performs differentiated and simultaneous functions, which
23
21. complicates its role as a global and local actor in the region. It is
at the same time an organizer of security, a supplier of arms and
military aid and the actor that lays down limitations on
procurement. The lack of suitable arrangements for dialogue
with the US, in the absence of solid institutions, reduces
opportunities for cooperation.
• United States unilateralism and security priorities. As the
leading international actor, the US favours unilateralism in the
actions it undertakes internationally and towards the countries of
the region, and gives priority to its own security concerns when
it comes to bilateral and multilateral issues. There is a clear need
to develop concerted regional policies to respond to the demands
of the international system and, in particular, to US foreign
policy. Consequently, it is of the greatest importance to establish
a cooperative programme of action to deal with security issues
between the countries of the region and the US.
• Latin America has not reached consensus on a common
conceptual framework for security. This affects the prospects for
constructing and implementing a system of binding norms in
relation to defence and international security and influences the
choice of public goods that are to be promoted and protected in
this field.
The situation described entails considerable challenges for
Latin American countries, particularly the need to produce a
common security concept for the Americas that reflects these
changes and the specific security requirements of the region. This
must be a fundamental objective as we look to the forthcoming
Special Conference on Security to be held under OAS auspices in
October. In this debate, the concept of human security is being
presented as a new perspective that can provide a better
understanding of the new security challenges facing the
countries. Indeed, the draft declarations being discussed at the
OAS affirm that state security and human security are mutually
reinforcing. Nonetheless, the debate as to how this link should be
implemented goes on.
24
22. Part Two
Human security: debating the concept
The concept of human security made its appearance on
the world scene in the mid-1990s, a time when new paradigms
were being sought to explain the international system and a
growing theoretical and practical debate was under way on the
traditional concepts of security that drove countries’ actions for
much of the last century. Academics, certain international
organizations and even some states promoted human security as
a concept that would provide a better grasp of the new security
challenges from the perspective of individuals or citizens. Of the
countries promoting human security, the members of the
Commission on Human Security, chiefly Canada and Japan,
deserve particular mention.
The most recent debate on this concept centres around
two reports: Human Security Now (2003), from the Commission
on Human Security, and The Responsibility to Protect (2001),
from the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty. Considering the relevance of the two reports and the
intensity of the international debate surrounding them, this
section begins by analysing these documents and then goes on to
consider the positions of the international organizations that
have promoted this outlook and of certain countries that have
incorporated this conception into their foreign policy.1
25
1 The member countries of the Human Security Network are Austria, Canada,
Chile, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South
Africa (observer), Switzerland and Thailand.
23. (a) Commission on Human Security
The creation of the Commission on Human Security was
announced in January 2001 in response to an appeal by United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in the context of the
Millennium Summit and with the support of the Government of
Japan. When it was constituted, the Commission set out to
consider ways of: (a) promoting public understanding of human
security and of the imperatives that this outlook entails; (b)
developing the concept of human security as an operational tool
for policy formulation and application; and (c) putting forward
a programme of action with a view to determining the best
measures for dealing with threats to human security.
Accordingly, in May 2003 it presented the report Human
Security Now (CHS, 2003), which seeks to respond to the three
points indicated. It emphasizes that the new factors of insecurity
affecting people require an integrated approach, and that the
human security perspective can generate responses to these new
challenges: ‘Policies and institutions must respond to these
insecurities in stronger and more integrated ways. The state
continues to have the primary responsibility for security. But as
security challenges become more complex and various new actors
attempt to play a role, we need a shift in paradigm. The focus
must broaden from the state to the security of people – to human
security.’
Concerning the definition of this concept, it argues that
‘human security means protecting vital freedoms. It means
protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and
situations, building on their strengths and aspirations. It also
means creating systems that give people the building blocks of
survival, dignity and livelihood. Human security connects
different types of freedoms – freedom from want, freedom from
fear and freedom to take action on one’s own behalf.’
Against this background, the report argues that there are
two general strategies for achieving the desired objective, these
26
24. being the protection and empowerment of individuals. Protection
insulates people from dangers. It requires a concerted effort to
establish norms, processes and institutions that systematically
address situations of insecurity. Respect for human rights is at the
core of human security protection. Empowerment, meanwhile,
enables people to participate fully in decision-making.
The report emphasizes that fostering democratic
principles is an important step towards human security and
development: it enables people to participate in governance
structures and make their voices heard. The report also points to
the need to create solid institutions, in a democratic context, to
underpin people’s autonomy and opportunities for participation.
The Commission sets forth its analysis of six issues relating
to conflict and need, when the manifestations of human security
are critical and widespread:
• Protecting people in violent conflicts. The report
underlines the need to strengthen norms and mechanisms for
protecting civilians, the main victims of conflicts. Priorities
include disarming those with weapons, combating crime and
preventing weapons proliferation and illegal trade in resources
and people.
• Protecting and empowering migrants and displaced persons.
At present there is no agreed international framework for
protecting or regulating migration, other than in the case of
refugees. The report suggests exploring the viability of an
international migration framework, laying the groundwork for
broad debate and dialogue on the need to strike a cautious
balance between countries’ security and development interests
and the human security of migrants.
• Protection and empowerment of people in post-conflict
situations. The responsibility to protect people in conflict
situations ought to be complemented by a responsibility for
reconstruction. Accordingly, the report proposes that a
framework and strategy of specific financing for this should be
designed.
27
25. • Economic insecurity, the possibility of choice between
different opportunities. As well as the problem of poverty, human
security relates to unfavourable economic conditions and the
social effects of crises. The equitable distribution of resources is
of the greatest importance in securing people’s choices and
livelihoods.
• Health as an element in human security. The report
emphasizes that HIV/AIDS is a priority. Because of their
urgency, extent and impact, the infectious diseases, poverty-
related threats and health needs that exist throughout the world
are particularly important.
• Knowledge, preparation for life and values as elements of
human security. The Commission stresses the need to attain the
goal of universal primary education and emphasizes the way in
which the communications and public information media can
help to prepare people so that they can actively exercise their
rights and assume their responsibilities.
(b) International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty
The International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS) was also established in response to the call by
Kofi Annan for the international community to work towards a
consensus over the question of humanitarian intervention. In
September 2002, during the United Nations General Assembly,
the Government of Canada and a group of major foundations
announced the creation of the ICISS with the objective of
addressing this issue.
In December 2001 the report The Responsibility to Protect
was presented. This centred on the idea that sovereign states had
a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable
catastrophes (mass murder, systematic rape and starvation), but
that if they could not or would not do so, this responsibility had
to be assumed by the community of states. The report examines
28
26. the nature and scope of this responsibility, along with other
questions such as who should exercise it, upon what authority,
and when, how and where (ICISS, 2001).
The report emphasizes that the current debate about
intervention aimed at protecting human beings is taking place
within a historical, political and legal context in which
international standards of individual and state behaviour are
evolving, not least towards the formulation of new and stricter
rules and mechanisms for protecting human rights. It argues that
‘the concept of human security – including concern for human
rights, but broader than that in its scope – has also become an
increasingly important element in international law and
international relations, increasingly providing a conceptual
framework for international action. Although the issue is far
from uncontroversial, the concept of security is now increasingly
recognized to extend to people as well as to states’ (ICISS, 2001).
Thus, the Commission accepts that issues of sovereignty and
intervention do not affect the rights or prerogatives of states only,
but have profound and fundamental implications for each
human being.
As the document argues, one of the advantages of
concentrating on the ‘responsibility to protect’ is that attention is
thereby focused on the needs of human beings seeking protection
or assistance. With this approach, the thrust of the security
debate shifts from territorial security to security based on human
development and on access to food, employment and
environmental security. It stresses that the traditional approach to
security neglects the most elemental and legitimate concerns that
people have in their daily lives. ‘When rape is used as an
instrument of war and ethnic cleansing, when thousands are
killed by floods resulting from a ravaged countryside and when
citizens are killed by their own security forces, then it is just
insufficient to think of security in terms of national or territorial
security alone. The concept of human security can and does
embrace such diverse circumstances’ (ICISS, 2001).
29
27. This being so, the report suggests that the responsibility to
protect is founded upon two basic principles: (a) state
sovereignty entails responsibilities, and it is the state itself that
has the prime responsibility for protecting its population; (b)
when the population is suffering serious harm as the result of civil
war, insurrection, repression by the state or the collapse of its
structures, and that state cannot or will not contain or prevent
this suffering, the responsibility to protect will take precedence
over the principle of non-intervention.
The international responsibility proposed by the report
would consist of three specific elements:
• The responsibility to prevent: removing the direct
underlying causes of internal conflicts and other man-made crises
that endanger the population. Prevention is the most important
dimension of the responsibility to protect; all options in this area
need to be exhausted before intervention can be contemplated,
and more efforts and resources need to be devoted to prevention.
• The responsibility to react: responding with appropriate
measures to situations in which the need for human protection is
overwhelming, including coercive measures such as the
imposition of sanctions and international legal initiatives and, in
extreme cases, military intervention.
• The responsibility to rebuild: offering full assistance,
particularly after a military intervention, for recovery,
reconstruction and reconciliation, and removing the causes of the
harm that the intervention was intended to contain or prevent.
(c) Origins of the human security concept: UNDP report
In its report New Dimensions of Human Security (UNDP,
1994), the United Nations Development Programme tried for
the first time to generate a comprehensive analysis of the issue
and define the concept of security on a new basis. For UNDP,
there are two conditions that guarantee human security: (a)
freedom from fear, and (b) freedom from want.
30
28. The document emphasizes that for most people the feeling
of insecurity focuses more on the concerns of day-to-day life than
on the fear of war in the world. ‘More generally, it will not be
possible for the community of nations to achieve any of its major
goals – not peace, not environmental protection, not human
rights or democratization, not fertility reduction, not social
integration – except in the context of sustainable development
that leads to human security.’
It also argues that ‘human security is people-centred. It is
concerned with how people live and breathe in a society, how
freely they exercise their many choices, how much access they
have to market and social opportunities – and whether they live
in conflict or peace … Human security means that people can
exercise these choices safely and freely – and that they can be
relatively confident that the opportunities they have today are
not totally lost tomorrow.’ Regarding the link between human
development and human security, it explains that the former
consists in expanding people’s opportunities, while human
security concerns the stable enjoyment of these, so that the
opportunities available today do not disappear over time.
The UNDP report proposes an enlarged conception of
human security, stressing that this entails a universal concern for
human life and dignity, that its components are interdependent
(in the political, social, economic and environmental spheres)
and that the effects of the main threats to it are worldwide in
scope (drug trafficking, terrorism, environmental damage, arms
trafficking, etc.). It also explains that this concept has an
integrative character that differentiates it from traditional
defensive conceptions of security limited to the defence of
territory and military power. Thus, the notion of human security
is based on the security of people, it being understood that
development must benefit all.
The report lists six dimensions that form part of human
security and its central concerns: the economic, health,
environmental, personal, community and political dimensions. It is
31
29. important to stress that while they may be analytically
distinguishable, these dimensions are part of a single phenomenon,
human security. Thus, the concept is regarded as ‘indivisible’
because when the securities associated with one of these dimensions
are undermined, all the other dimensions are affected too.
(d) International organizations and human security
The concept of human security was also treated as an
essential issue in the UN Millennium Report (United Nations,
2000b), in which Kofi Annan observed that ‘the requirements of
security today have come to embrace the protection of
communities and individuals from internal violence’, adding that
‘the need for a more human-centred approach to security is
reinforced by the continuing dangers that weapons of mass
destruction, most notably nuclear weapons, pose to humanity:
their very name reveals their scope and their intended objective,
if they were ever used’ (United Nations, 2000b, Chap. IV, 194,
195). The report argues that when security is defined in terms of
protection for people, six fundamental aspects need to be
considered: (i) prevention, which means promoting balanced
economic development along with respect for human and
minority rights and with political agreements whereby all sectors
are fairly represented. Conflicts are more common in poor
countries, particularly those that are badly governed and that
have acute inequalities between ethnic or religious groups; (ii)
protection for the most vulnerable sectors, through the correct
application of international law and respect for human rights;
(iii) the intervention dilemma, the argument being that national
sovereignty is not to be used to protect those who arbitrarily
violate the rights and threaten the lives of their fellows; (iv)
improved peacekeeping operations: the report invites
consideration of the recommendations made by a group of
experts set up by the Secretary-General to examine all aspects of
such operations; (v) the specification of sanctions: the Security
32
30. Council is urged to review and analyse research in this area with
a view to making sanctions more effective by specifying their
objective; (vi) arms reduction. The Secretary-General calls on
Member States to control the small arms trade more rigorously
and to commit themselves to reducing the risks of existing
nuclear weapons and proliferation.
In defining human security, Kofi Annan specifies that this
idea, ‘in its broadest sense, embraces far more than the absence of
violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance,
access to education and health care and ensuring that each
individual has opportunities and choices to fulfil his or her
potential. Every step in this direction is also a step towards
reducing poverty, achieving economic growth and preventing
conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the
freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural
environment: these are the interrelated building blocks of human
– and therefore national – security’ (Annan, 2001).
UNESCO has also done important work in promoting
this concept, organizing a series of international seminars to
promote regional approaches towards a clearer understanding of
the needs and the most appropriate modes of action for the joint
promotion of human security and conflict prevention in each
specific regional and cultural context (Goucha and Rojas
Aravena, 2003a). In this context, the Chief of the UNESCO
Section of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Moufida Goucha,
has emphasized the importance of ‘preventing conflicts and
violence, paying special attention to the combined effect of the
risks and threats to citizens and pursuing the eradication of non-
armed, non-military threats to peace and security. This means
taking the concepts of human security and democratic security
further, at a time when there is such a clear need to renew the
international logic of security.’2
The Organization has also
33
2 Moufida Goucha, Unit for Peace and the New Dimensions of Security,
UNESCO, December 1999.
31. sponsored a series of educational initiatives, particularly human
rights training for specific groups, such as army, security force
and police representatives. It has also begun to establish exchange
relationships with peace research and training institutes, and with
defence and strategic studies institutes.
Through its SecuriPax3
network, UNESCO has created an
internet portal whose purpose is to improve interconnection
among different networks of organizations, research institutions,
universities and centres that promote peace and human security
as a main element in their programmes.
While the origins of the concept of protection for
individuals date back to the birth of international law, it was in
the United Nations Charter, and particularly in the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that it took on a global
dimension. As we have mentioned, in 1994 the UNDP
systematized a comprehensive approach. The ending of the Cold
War had opened up new opportunities for considering human
security from fresh points of view. In the Millennium Report, the
concept became pivotal to the United Nations. Two of its
academic institutions, the United Nations University and the
University for Peace, have carried out studies and published on
the subject. In Latin America and the Caribbean, FLACSO-
Chile has led a major debate on the concept of security in the
region. In the process, it has encouraged the development of
conceptual links between personal protection and human
security and the international and state dimensions of security.
(e) Countries promoting the concept of human security
and the Network
Adoption by the different states of the concept of human
security in international and cooperation policies has been very
uneven. Their different positions are obviously grounded in
34
3 http://www.unesco.org/securipax/
32. different historical traditions and in differences of outlook
concerning the strategic political role they see themselves as
playing in the international concert. A number of countries,
though, have developed and applied the concept of human
security as a guiding principle of their international policy. In
order to convey the different conceptualizations being debated at
present, we briefly analyse the cases of Canada, Japan and the
Human Security Network, which have taken the lead in this
area.4
(i) Canada
The Government of Canada, and in particular its former
Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, considerably
developed this concept as an essential part of its foreign policy. In
conjunction with Norway, it was also behind the creation of the
Human Security Network in 1998.
According to the document Freedom from Fear: Canada’s
Foreign Policy for Human Security,5
the best way of conceiving
human security is through a change in outlook that makes people
the central point of reference in international affairs, with the clear
purpose of protecting their human rights. It defines human
security as freedom from threats to the rights of individuals, their
security or their lives. It lays down a number of foreign policy
priorities for promoting human security: the protection of civilians
in armed conflicts, support for peacekeeping operations, conflict
prevention, governance, accountability and public safety. In this
context, the Government of Canada contributed to and supported
the work of the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty, which in December 2001 presented its report
The Responsibility to Protect already referred to here.
35
4 For further details see Fuentes and Rojas Aravena (2003).
5 http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/
33. The approach of the Government of Canada is more
restrictive than what has been proposed by UNDP and the
Commission on Human Security, as it focuses on the protection
of individuals and communities in violent conflicts, particularly
those within states. Its justification for this is the need for an
approach that makes it more practicable to analyse and
implement the concept of human security, rather than extending
it to all sorts of areas. It also argues that there are a range of
institutions dealing with development-related issues and that it is
necessary to concentrate on a number of specific threats and on
the creation of specific instruments for addressing them (Evans,
2003).
The University of British Columbia has created a human
security centre that forms part of a world affairs institute headed
by Lloyd Axworthy. This centre is conducting a major project
with a view to publishing a report on human security, under the
direction of Professor Andrew Mack. An important aspect is the
construction of a conflict database that will make it possible to
link human development to armed conflicts.6
(ii) Japan
Japan has emphasized the need for the twenty-first century
to be people-centred. This was made clear by the Bluebook of the
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Government of Japan,
2002, Chap. 1), which states that human security is one of the
central aspects of the country’s foreign policy. ‘Japan emphasizes
“Human Security” from the perspective of strengthening efforts
to cope with threats to human lives, livelihoods and dignity as
poverty, environmental degradation, illicit drugs, transnational
organized crime, infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, the
outflow of refugees and anti-personnel land mines, and has taken
various initiatives in this context. To ensure “Human freedom
36
6 http://www.humansecurityreport.info
34. and potential”, a range of issues needs to be addressed from the
perspective of “Human Security” focused on the individual,
requiring cooperation among the various actors in the
international community, including governments, international
organizations and civil society’ (Government of Japan, 1999,
Chap. 2, Sec. 3).
One of the greatest contributions has been the
establishment of a United Nations Trust Fund for Human
Security, to which the Government of Japan has donated
US$160.7 million in the last four years, making it one of the
most important United Nations funds of its kind. Japan has also
given crucial support to the creation and work of the
Commission on Human Security. Among the priority issues
selected for the awarding of project grants from the Fund are the
following: poverty, refugees and internally displaced persons,
health, drug control, transnational crime and the environment.
Japan’s human security priorities are a direct result of the broader
definition to which it subscribes in accordance with the
arguments of the Commission on Human Security, which
emphasizes the reduction of economic and social vulnerabilities
rather than the strengthening of individual rights and freedoms,
an approach that centres more on the prevention of violent
threats.7
(iii) Human Security Network
The Human Security Network (HSN) grew out of a
bilateral arrangement between Canada and Norway, signed at
Lysøen Island (Norway) in 1998, and its aim was to form an
association of countries with the purpose of promoting a new
concept of human security centred on people (Fuentes, 2003).
37
7 It is interesting to note the differences between Canada and Japan here. Canada
is another country that has promoted the human security outlook, but stressing the
idea of ‘freedom from fear’, whereas Japan has prioritized ‘freedom from want’.
35. The first HSN meeting was held in 1999, organized as a group
of like-minded countries which, through informal and flexible
mechanisms, seek to generate points of consensus and promote
practical actions in this respect. The Network is currently made
up of thirteen countries: Austria, Canada, Chile, Greece, Ireland,
Jordan, Mali, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa,
Switzerland and the United Republic of Tanzania.
Chile is the only Latin American country in the Human
Security Network. In 2002 it hosted the Fourth Ministerial
Meeting of this group of nations, and it has consistently given
priority to the values and principles of human security when
formulating its foreign policy. The Chilean Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Soledad Alvear, has stressed that ‘human security … is
not only linked to a humanitarian view of conflicts but also to
the outcry of people, wherever they might live, for a decent
quality of life that meets their aspirations and provides a response
to their uncertainties. Therefore, our conviction is that peace is
directly relating to the opportunities men and women have to
lead a better life. For this reason, we emphasize that for us the
highest degree of human security will be attained only when we
seriously consider people as the main beneficiaries of national
and international public policies’ (Soledad Alvear, 2003).
Hitherto, the countries have concentrated more on
generating a programme of international action than on pursuing
the conceptual debate on human security. Thus, the agenda of
HSN meetings has focused on a number of issues, four of them
priority ones: prohibition of the use of anti-personnel mines and
the clearing of minefields; small arms; the participation of
children in armed conflicts; and human rights education. Table
1 summarizes the main issues dealt with at the five ministerial
meetings of the Network.
38
36. Table 1
Agenda of HSN ministerial meetings (1999–2004)
Source: Based on the President’s report of each Human Security Network meeting
(http://www.humansecuritynetwork.org/).
The HSN has worked on numerous issues, as Table 1
shows, and this has hindered it from taking effective
international action. This being so, one of the main tasks that
will have to be addressed by this network of countries if it is to
become a major international focus in this area is the
establishment of a working programme setting out its priorities.
Lastly, a Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict
Research has been launched at the University of Harvard, under
the direction of Claude Bruderlein. This programme publishes a
periodic bulletin highlighting the work of the Network countries
and the institutions that promote this vision of security.8
39
8 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
37. Part Three
Hemispheric initiatives
At the hemispheric level, an important debate has arisen
within the Organization of American States over the need to
generate a shared concept of security for the region. At the
Second Summit of the Americas, held in Santiago (Chile) in
1998, the presidents instructed the OAS Committee on
Hemispheric Security to carry out an analysis of the meaning,
scope and influence of international security concepts in the
hemisphere, with a view to identifying the common positions
most appropriate for addressing their different aspects, including
disarmament and weapons control. Emphasis was also laid on the
need to identify ways of strengthening institutions in this field.9
At the Third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec in
2001, this mandate was confirmed and it was decided that a Special
Conference on Security should be held. The Commission on
Human Security was therefore asked to complete its review of all
issues relating to the approach taken to security in the hemisphere.
Furthermore, the Plan of Action states that governments will
‘continue with priority activities on conflict prevention and the
peaceful resolution of disputes, respond to shared traditional and
non-traditional security and defense concerns and support measures
to improve human security’. The origin of this declaration was a
document presented by the Delegation of Canada to the OAS
General Assembly in June 2000. The Delegation of Canada
suggested that the Summit of the Americas and the OAS could
41
9 OAS, Special Conference on Security, AG/RES. 1908 (XXXII-O/02).
38. incorporate the question of human security into their efforts to
strengthen and consolidate democracy, as a useful yardstick for
establishing priorities and evaluating results.10
One of the most significant developments for the
reformulation of security concepts in the hemisphere occurred at
the OAS General Assembly held in Bridgetown (Barbados) in
June 1992. In the Bridgetown Declaration it was agreed that a
multidimensional approach to hemispheric security would be
established. Governments thus ‘recognized that security threats,
concerns, and other challenges in the hemispheric context are of
diverse nature and multidimensional scope, and that the
traditional concept and approach should be expanded to
encompass new and nontraditional threats, which include
political, economic, social, health, and environmental aspects’.11
The Declaration also stressed that the new threats and challenges
to security were transnational in nature and that the responses
they required would have to involve different national and
hemispheric organizations. This being so, it was agreed that
appropriate mechanisms should be developed and strengthened
to enhance cooperation and coordination so that the new threats,
concerns and other multidimensional challenges relating to
hemispheric security could be addressed in a more targeted way.
The next Special Conference on Security was planned for
May 2003, but was postponed until late October of that year.
The Committee on Hemispheric Security, in fulfilment of its
task of preparing the way for the conference, conducted a
number of exercises including diverse and wide-ranging
consultations with different organizations connected with
hemispheric security issues. In addition, a number of
governments answered a questionnaire dealing with the central
issues of the conference. Meanwhile, the last two meetings of the
42
10 Document presented by the Delegation of Canada to the OAS General
Assembly, OAS/SER.P, AG/doc.3851/00.
11 Bridgetown Declaration, AG/DEC. 27 (XXXII-O/02).
39. OAS General Assembly passed important declarations and
resolutions to pave the way for the forthcoming Special
Conference on Security (Table 2).
The Preliminary Draft Declaration of the Conference did
not command a consensus among OAS member countries. The
number of observations annotated throughout the preliminary
document, relating to both technicalities and matters of
substance, reflects the difficulties the countries face in finding a
common concept of security to enable them to develop and use
instruments that can protect states and their citizens.
The draft Declaration reaffirms the multidimensional
approach to security as the Bridgetown Declaration does. It refers to
the need to recognize the diversity of perceptions among states in
relation to threats and other security concerns and challenges such as
the countries’ economic, social, political, environmental and health
situations. It also affirms that ‘the security of individuals is a principal
responsibility of states and is one of the essential foundations for
national and hemispheric security. The security of the state and the
security of the person are mutually reinforcing. Human security and
state security are strengthened where states work to ensure the
protection of all people’s rights, safety and lives’.12
The Special Conference on Security is an opportunity for
the countries of the hemisphere to try to consolidate a broader
vision of security with a view to drafting an inter-American
charter of hemispheric security. It is important for Special
Conference declarations to reaffirm the values and principles that
organize cooperation on the continent, with democracy as the
central axis, and to highlight the need for a comprehensive
approach to security that effectively reflects the dimensions
affecting the security of individuals.
43
12 OAS, Draft Declaration of the Special Conference on Security, CP/CSH-
558/03 rev. 3 (http://www.oas.org). See also ‘Consulting workshop with scholars
and civil society organizations for the Special Conference on Security of the
Americas’, held at FLACSO on 17 March 2003 (http://www.flacso.cl).
40. The concept of human security is also present in
subregional agreements. Of particular importance is the Costa
Rican initiative proposing a series of changes to the Framework
Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America. Costa Rica
argues that ‘human security’ is a broader and more expressive
term than the concept dealt with in Part II of the Treaty, which
refers to the security of people and their property (Whyte, 2003).
Table 2
General Assembly declarations and resolutions relating
to the Special Conference on Security (2002–03)
AG/DEC. 27 (XXXII-O/02) Bridgetown Declaration: The multidimensional
approach to hemispheric security (adopted at fourth
plenary session, 4 June 2002)
AG/RES. 1908 (XXXII-O/02) Special Conference on Security
AG/RES. 1940 (XXXIII-O/03)
AG/RES. 1874 (XXXII-O/02) Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing
AG/RES. 1972 (XXXIII-O/03) of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives,
and Other Related Materials
AG/RES. 1877 (XXXII-O/02) Support for the Work of the Inter-American
AG/RES. 1964 (XXXIII-O/03) Committee against Terrorism
AG/RES. 1931 (XXXIII-O/03) Protecting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
while Countering Terrorism
AG/RES. 1879 (XXXII-O/02) Confidence-and Security-Building in the Americas
AG/RES. 1967 (XXXIII-O/03)
AG/RES. 1880 (XXXII-O/02) Summit-Mandated Meeting of Experts on Confidence-
and Security-Building Measures in the Region
AG/RES. 1882 (XXXII-O/02) Annual Report of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission and the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism
AG/RES. 1949 (XXXIII-O/03) Observations and Recommendations on the Annual
Report of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission
44
41. AG/RES. 1950 (XXXIII-O/03) Implementation of the Multilateral Evaluation
Mechanism of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission
AG/RES. 1885 (XXXII-O/02) Natural Disaster Reduction
AG/RES. 1955 (XXXIII-O/03)
AG/RES. 1886 (XXXII-O/02) Special Security Concerns of Small Island States of the
AG/RES. 1970 (XXXIII-O/03) Caribbean
AG/RES. 1887 (XXXII-O/02) Limitation of Military Spending
AG/RES. 1963 (XXXIII-O/03)
AG/RES. 1889 (XXXII-O/02) The Western Hemisphere as an Antipersonnel-Land-
AG/RES. 1936 (XXXIII-O/03) Mine-Free Zone
AG/RES. 1934 (XXXIII-O/03) Support for the Program of Integral Action against
Antipersonnel Mines in Central America
AG/RES. 1935 (XXXIII-O/03) Support for Action against Mines in Ecuador and Peru
AG/RES. 1903 (XXXII-O/02) Consolidation of the Regime Established in the Treaty
AG/RES. 1937 (XXXIII-O/03) for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)
AG/RES. 1938 (XXXIII-O/03) Inter-American Support for the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
AG/RES. 1939 (XXXIII-O/03) Development of an Inter-American Strategy to Combat
Threats to Cybersecurity
AG/RES. 1968 (XXXIII-O/03) Proliferation of and Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms and
Light Weapons
AG/RES. 1966 (XXXIII-O/03) The Americas as a Biological- and Chemical-Weapons-
Free Region
AG/RES. 1795 (XXXI-O/01) Preparations for the Summit-mandated Special Conference
on Security
AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00) Cooperation for Security in the Hemisphere
AG/RES. 1643 (XXIX-O/99) Work Program of the Committee on Hemispheric
Security in Preparation for the Special Conference on
Security
AG/RES. 1566 (XXVIII-O/98) Confidence- and Security-Building in the Americas
45
42. Part Four
Strengths and weaknesses of the concept
of human security
As Part Three showed, international debate is intensifying
on the development of a concept of security centred on the
protection of individuals that can respond to the fresh challenges
and the many new threats that have been emerging in the new
post-Cold War international context. Although there are
disagreements about the conceptualization of human security
and the best ways of implementing it, some of the essential
characteristics of this concept can be described, as can some of its
shortcomings or limitations.
Among the strengths of this new concept, three
fundamental characteristics need to be highlighted:
• Its integrative nature and its focus on people. Unlike
traditional security concepts, this one has been generated by civil
society, going beyond concern for military power and the defence
of territory in an effort to protect individuals and communities.
Thus, human security is based on the idea of personal security,
on the understanding that not only the state but also non-state
actors and the individual are responsible and need to participate
in creating policies and measures to enhance people’s security.
• Its multidimensionality. Human security includes the
dimensions that affect people’s security (political, economic,
social) and identifies traditional and unconventional security
threats. It emphasizes that the effects of the main threats to
people’s security are worldwide in scope.
47
43. • Its stress on multilateralism and cooperation. The new
international context has altered the dimensions of issues that
were formerly addressed exclusively from a national perspective
but that are now part of a new international order where only the
capacity for joint action will restore to states the ability to
generate, together with other actors, a system capable of meeting
national, regional and international demands. Human security
emphasizes partnership and cooperation.
In the terms set out above, the concept of human security
has the effect of drawing together security concerns in different
areas. Nonetheless, this concept does have some limitations and
these are particularly important in the context of the Latin
American countries, whose democratic systems have
shortcomings. Here, the main limitations of this concept derive
from two factors: (a) its wide scope; (b) the introduction of the
security dimension into development priorities.
Some authors have argued that the scope of security
concepts entails the risk of ‘desecuritization’, i.e. that they might
be emptied of content by being extended too far because
everything can be evaluated from the perspective of security,
which thus loses its specificity, the result being a potential failure
to protect citizens.13
Not every important issue is a security issue.
Nor is every security issue necessarily a priority one. Thus, it is
important for the idea of human security to be linked to violence
and the use of force and to be kept as a coordinating concept
(Rojas Aravena, 2001).
In practical terms, however, the scope of the tasks relating
to human security translates into difficulties in focusing on issues
considered to be of high priority and generates implementation
problems at both the national and the regional and international
levels. In the first case, this is because priorities and the extent of
the problems affecting people’s security vary depending on the
48
13 Ole Waever, cited by Diamint (2001).
44. regional and national context, which complicates the design of
strategies for action associated with this concept given the
multiplicity of interests and demands involved. An example of
this is the difficulties that the Human Security Network has
encountered in seeking to identify which issues are of priority for
this partnership of countries and to apply the appropriate
international measures.
This problem is felt particularly strongly in Latin America,
as although good analyses are available of the main vulnerabilities
affecting the region, there is no consensus as to what the
priorities should be. This results in weak policy-making when it
comes to action for development and human security.
As regards problems with applying and implementing this
concept, it is important to realize that they derive not just from
the scope of the tasks involved in human security but also from
the need to improve coordination between organizations. This
process can give rise to confusion as to the respective roles and
functions of particular institutions, organizations and individuals
participating in this process, and it also coincides with the slow,
long-drawn-out reform and modernization of states and certain
international organizations with the objective of greater
administrative efficiency. At the national level, it requires greater
coordination between the staff of defence and foreign affairs
ministries, and of the armed forces and police. In the case of the
Latin American and Caribbean countries, there is a need to carry
out a ‘reform of security systems’ as a crucial aspect of
institutional modernization and as an instrument of democratic
governance. At the international level, meanwhile, the functions
of multilateral organizations need to be better targeted to deal
with security threats.
The second shortcoming of this concept is the possibility
that the issue of security may be integrated into development
plans and that these plans may overlap, i.e. the possibility that
there may be military responses to what are properly
development issues. Here, while the problems of development
49
45. and security are closely linked, it is important to demarcate their
respective fields of action and be clear that these are two different
fields that need to be harmonized carefully. In Latin America,
special attention needs to be paid to: (a) targeting the functions
of the armed forces and police within a democratic framework: it
is essential for legal frameworks to be delimited to prevent the
police from becoming militarized or the military from taking on
attributes that properly belong to the police; (b) establishing
effective coordination between the civil and military authorities
to address the new security threats in an effective way. The issue
of the use of violence and the state’s monopoly of this is crucial,
as shown in Part Five.
50
46. Part Five
Human security: a unifying and linking concept
In the last decade, the countries and societies of Latin
America have undertaken a far-reaching review and
reformulation of security concepts. A conceptual shift has been
taking place, away from the Cold War outlook that identified a
single enemy and that was strongly military, with state interests
predominating, towards a post-Cold War stage in which the
threats are diffuse, have less of a military character, often appear
to have nothing to do with the state, and may even be
deterritorialized. The objective of this debate is to develop a
shared concept of hemispheric security that yields more effective
responses to the demands arising at the national, regional and
international levels.
Against this background, FLACSO-Chile has been
working on the conceptualization of human security with the
idea of enhancing the strengths of this outlook and evaluating
and clarifying its possible limitations, particularly in the Latin
American context. To this end, three essential issues have been
concentrated on: (a) the need to establish in practical,
operational terms the relationship between national security,
international security and human security; (b) the use of violence
as a determining element in the analysis; (c) the formulation of
recommendations for preventing violence and other non-military
threats to the individual.
51
47. (a) The security triad14
One of the main intellectual and institutional challenges is
to establish a conceptual link from human security to
international security that takes in state security on the way
(Rojas Aravena, 2003a). Once satisfactorily established, this
relationship will simultaneously satisfy world security needs and
those of nations, individuals and peoples. At the same time, it
will improve the implementation of human security measures.
The primordial characteristic of the new international
conflicts, centred on intra-state problems, reveals the need to
reach a better understanding of the interrelationship between
these three levels, particularly in view of the impact of
globalization. The new threats are transnational in nature and
involve actors and agents that in most cases do not represent a
nation or are not located in a clearly delimited state territory.
Again, in a context of globalization and interdependence
the risks and vulnerabilities that affect a nation’s security also
affect other states, and thus cannot be resolved exclusively within
its own borders. Wars have changed radically as well. The great
majority of them are no longer between states. Conflicts take
place within states and have inter-state consequences. Their
origins and motivations have more to do with ethnicity, religion
or self-determination than with disagreements over borders or
state interests. Non-state actors are playing a more prominent
part. Furthermore, demands are increasingly being directed
towards international, inter-state and non-governmental
organizations, which means that the capabilities of states,
especially the less powerful ones, are being reduced.
To conceptualize security, a number of associated concepts
need to be considered.
National security is what is traditionally meant by security,
being concerned primarily with sovereignty and matters relating
52
14 This subject is also discussed by Fuentes and Rojas Aravena (2003).
48. to borders and natural resources. The conceptualization of
national security centres fundamentally on the state, which is
considered responsible for safeguarding the interests of its
community. The size and balance of military forces come into
play here, as do concepts associated with deterrence and defence.
International security refers principally to relations
between states, the international community of the United
Nations and regional organizations (such as the OAS). World
aspects, globalization and the influence of state actors,
international organizations and, increasingly, non-state actors,
can be situated at this level. In the sphere of international
security, solutions of a general nature are produced and global
and/or regional international regimes are instituted. Thus, this
level works on the basis of multilateralism.
Human security centres on the protection of individuals
and communities. This concept has a unifying and
multidimensional nature. It takes in more local dimensions, even
if these relate to issues affecting great masses of people. It also
takes in issues of a planetary scale that affect humanity as a whole
(AIDS, SARS, the environment, etc.). In both cases, these are
issues that have not traditionally been approached at the other
two levels (national security and international security). In other
words, the focus is shifting from the state to individuals; the
fundamental issue is the protection of individuals and peoples
over and above their connection with a particular state.
Thus, human security is emerging as a unifying and
linking concept for the new security problems and determinants
of the twenty-first century.
Table 3 summarizes the main dimensions of analysis used
to define the concepts of national security, international security
and human security, and the practical consequences that these
definitions entail.
53
49. Table 3
Dimensions of analysis. Conceptualization of national security,
international security and human security
In the human/national/international security triad, the
predominating factor can vary depending on the situation. In the
vast majority of cases where the state is strong and dominant, the
pivot will be national security and its link with international
security. This confirms that the state is still the main
international actor. In some geographical regions, mainly Africa,
the centre of gravity may instead be international security and its
54
50. principal actors, owing to the collapse of some states. In other
words, the focus is on the ability of the international system to
react to crises in fragile or disappearing states, either to achieve
stability or to produce and promote cooperation and assistance
when humanitarian disasters occur.
In Latin America, the main vulnerabilities derive from the
crisis of governance that is affecting the region, making human
security harder to achieve and at the same time creating the
conditions for serious insecurity that perpetuates the fear of
violence and the persistence of serious unmet needs throughout the
region. Because there is very little in the way of inter-state conflict
and the crisis of governance has not attained the proportions of a
humanitarian crisis, the international community has paid little
attention to the problems facing Latin American countries.
To sum up, the conditions required for human security
can only be met in conjunction with the conditions required for
state and international security. Indeed, an international crisis is
at once a state crisis and a human security crisis. Likewise, a crisis
in the state becomes a humanitarian crisis and an international
crisis, and a human security crisis is simultaneously a state and
international crisis, whence the need for a holistic approach.
(b) Broadening the concept of security and violence
What sets human security apart is its unifying, holistic
character. This means that the dimensions affecting people’s
security/insecurity can be determined and the concept of security
accordingly extended to take in economic, political, social,
environmental and indeed cultural aspects. To avoid the danger
of over-reach referred to earlier, however, it is necessary to settle
upon an approach or element that can provide a focal point for
the concept of human security in the different dimensions and at
the different levels where it is expressed. Similarly, a holistic or
integrated perspective means that appropriate linkages can be
made in the conceptual triad.
55
51. In our judgement, the specific structural element that
enables this phenomenon to be best understood and targeted is
violence. Accordingly, we need to consider both the conditions
under which this appears and its perpetrators.
The phenomenon can be more readily analysed if three
main aspects are considered: the conditions under which violence
is likely to occur; the perpetrators of violence; and the preventive
measures that can be taken so that violence and humanitarian
crises do not break out.
(i) The conditions under which violence is likely to occur. The
particular relationships that arise between structural elements
and the manifestations of violence must be understood in order
to analyse the necessary preconditions for violence. Simultaneous
consideration must also be given to the specific conditions
leading to violence: these are the elements that turn necessary
conditions into sufficient conditions. By considering these
aspects the set of conditions that come together in a particular
way to produce violence can be determined with greater
precision.
(ii) The perpetrators of violence. The functions and
capabilities of potential perpetrators of violence will be of vital
importance. Thus, consideration must be given both to their
actual capacity for exercising power and to their subjective
capacity for influencing others so that violence can be
committed. In the current international context we can recognize
non-state actors whose capabilities are very considerable, in many
cases greater than those of states themselves, which means that
differentiated responses are required to address the phenomenon
of violence in its various manifestations.
(iii) Preventive measures to stop violence breaking out.
Multidimensional approaches to security widen the field of
analysis. Nonetheless, if violence and the use of force are to be
kept as the focus of analysis targeted responses must be produced
to account for the phenomenon of violence as such, i.e. to be
capable in an emergency of dealing with structural situations by
56
52. various means. Establishing a preventive framework means
determining in what situations it can be said that the power of
the state has proved inadequate or in what circumstances a
humanitarian situation requires an international reaction,
something that in turn means establishing where the decision to
act will be taken, and by whom. If this takes place in an
international setting then solid multilateral institutions will be
required to lay down the parameters for collective action.
Equally, while preventive and active measures will focus primarily
on situations of actual violence, they need to be understood as
part of a broader response process that is able to take a
multidimensional approach to the situations described. In this
latter case, preventive and active measures reaffirm the associative
and cooperative nature of the response.
In the present situation, the impact of globalization and
interdependence and of development gaps has resulted in a major
loss of state capabilities, affecting small and medium-sized states
in particular. In the case of Latin America, this has been
manifested in a profound crisis of governance. In this context,
the state ceases to exercise effective sovereignty in all kinds of
areas. When it loses its monopoly of legitimate force then a
critical situation arises, one that can lead to a humanitarian crisis
because of the state’s inability to respond.
Collapsed or failed states are an acute example of this loss
of capabilities. One of the prime options opening up in today’s
context is that of generating a planned, associative and necessarily
reciprocal surrender of sovereignty to expand the scope for
regulation based on the interconnection and interdependence
between two or more state actors.
Joint action to forestall the use of force reaffirms
international law and generates increased opportunities for
concerted action. In other words, ‘the new global and regional
challenges in the post-Cold War period are to improve and create
law and to construct spaces for cooperative action, substantive
links to limit the use of force, by working towards the
57
53. establishment of regimes that bring stability and peace within
reach’.15
In the Latin American countries, great masses of people
are suffering the consequences of the state’s failure to assert a
monopoly of violence or its inability to create a demilitarized
order. This is compounded by the growing presence of
transnational phenomena involving the use of violence, not at a
level sufficient to overthrow an established state but enough to
create a strategic threat. These are what have been called
asymmetrical threats. Other forms of violence can be the work of
the state when it oversteps the legitimate use of force, with effects
that are equally negative for individuals. There is a need to design
new and more efficient policy coordination mechanisms that
include prevention and coercion of the non-traditional
dimensions of violence.
Identifying violence as a pivotal element makes it possible
to achieve a broad understanding of the phenomena that
determine it and to obtain specific responses as to when and in
what cases legitimate violence is the best means and when other
instruments should be used. The militarization of responses
results in a rising spiral of violence that is hard to stop.
Conversely, the adoption of preventive measures limits the scope
for the emergence of conditions that favour violence.
58
15 Translated from Rojas Aravena (2001).
54. Part Six
Ethical and normative dimensions
of human security
(a) Ethical aspects of human security
Besides the conceptual debate about human security, it is
important to note that this idea also entails an ethical and a
normative dimension. The ethical dimension concerns the idea
of right and wrong, while the normative one relates to what
ought to be done. Ultimately, ethics are the set of values and
principles that govern a particular society or human group and
the normative aspect concerns the practices that norms prescribe.
This means the international agreements and conventions signed
by states to protect the individual in the case of human security,
and the follow-up of their application by governments,
international organizations and civil society.
From an ethical point of view, human security is to be
understood as an idea that promotes respect and protection for
individuals and that needs to be put into practice so that
individuals perceive it not as an elusive concept but as a basic
demand and a fundamental right, as well as a personal
responsibility (Lee, 2004).
In this context, it is essential to point out that respect for
human rights is the core of personal protection. The two are
mutually reinforcing. As the Report of the Commission on
Human Security puts it, the idea of human security helps to
determine which rights are threatened in particular situations,
whereas human rights answer the following question: how can
human security be furthered? The idea of rights and obligations
59
55. complements recognition of the ethical and political importance
of human security.
Some authors have even argued that ‘human security …
is the realization of the three generations of human rights: human
beings need freedom from fear and from unmet basic needs (the
essence of human security), and to this end they have the right to
individual freedom, equality before the law, the ownership of
material goods, an active vote, the making of laws, resistance to
oppression, a fair wage, food, clothing, housing, health,
education and culture. In sum, human beings have the right to
live and choose in states that are politically self-determining, that
dispose in a free and sovereign fashion of their natural resources,
and that are free to construct their own culture.’16
The ethical aspect lies in the protection of individuals as a
basic element of international law and of the definition of the
public goods on which the international system is based. When
it comes to implementing this approach, however, priorities
differ significantly by region. In the case of Africa a stronger state
is a precondition, and from this follows the argument that the
key factor is the link between human security and human
development. Without state capabilities and a minimum basis of
human development, neither stability nor peace will be achieved
and non-traditional threats will weigh every more heavily
(Goucha and Cilliers, 2001). In the case of the Caribbean,
similar ethico-normative conditions are emphasized in relation to
the security challenges that need to be met in the region’s small
countries.
60
16 Translated from Víctor Valle (2003).
56. (b) Normative dimension of human security
One of the factors giving greater currency to the concept
of human security is the growing universalization of the values
and principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the development of international law as it relates to
the protection of the individual. As this section shows, the
international order is no longer confined to matters bearing on
the prevention of war between states, but also extends to the
promotion of citizens’ rights, welfare and personal freedom.
Each of the issues and concerns included in Tables 4–8
relates to an area that has been the subject in more or less recent
times of a normative effort by the international community in
those aspects that affect the security of individuals. As
highlighted earlier, the Human Security Network has played a
significant role in this.
Conventions and protocols have been used to establish
legal sources which, on the one hand, provide the tools needed to
move towards enforcement of the objectives set forth in each of
these instruments of international law and, on the other, taken as
a whole, illustrate the degree to which each country is committed
to what may now be considered universally accepted principles.
Applying this criterion to Latin America and the
Caribbean, the tables that follow show which of a number of
conventions and protocols the countries of the region have
signed up to in the political (political rights, human rights),
socio-economic (economic and social rights), cultural (cultural
rights, non-discrimination) and environmental spheres and in
the area of disarmament and international and regional security.
The instruments chosen directly concern one or more of the
problems of the human security field, thus they throw light on
the extent to which this outlook is being promoted in Latin
America.
To simplify our approach, each country’s degree of
participation in each of the conventions and protocols identified
61
57. is summarized by the expressions SP (State Party) and NP (Non
Party).
The first of these refers to countries that have signed and
ratified or acceded to each of these instruments and that therefore
have not only incorporated them into their domestic legal
arrangements but participate in their administration by the
international community or the inter-American community, as
the case may be, either as States Parties at their conferences, or as
Member States of organizations set up by these.
The expression NP (Non Party) alludes to those states that
have not signed these instruments, or have signed them but not
ratified them, and have therefore not incorporated them into
domestic law and do not participate in their administration.
In one particular case, that of the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Table 6),
the expressions Signed (S), Not Signed (NS) and Ratified (R) are
used, because this instrument has not yet come into force, and
the categories of ‘State Party’ and ‘Non Party’ do not yet apply.
62
58. (c) Treaties, conventions and other binding instruments
dealing with human security
Table 4
SP: State Party
NP: Non Party
S: Signed
R: Ratified
NS: Not Signed
63
59. Table 5
SP: State Party
NP: Non Party
S: Signed
R: Ratified
NS: Not Signed
64
60. Table 6
SP: State Party
NP: Non Party
S: Signed
R: Ratified
NS: Not Signed
65
61. Table 7
SP: State Party
NP: Non Party
S: Signed
R: Ratified
NS: Not Signed
66
62. Table 8
SP: State Party
NP: Non Party
S: Signed
R: Ratified
NS: Not Signed
67
63. Socio-economic sphere
ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by the United Nations General Assembly on
16 December 1966. In force since 3 January 1976. This is a
binding instrument that complements the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it basically
establishes that all peoples have the right of self-determination. It
adds that, by virtue of this right, the peoples of the world are free
to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development.
It also contains the complementary provision that all
peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth
and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of
international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of
mutual benefit, and international law. It specifically states that in
no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence and
that its provisions will apply to men and women alike. Again,
among the most important rights to be protected, the following
are specified: the right to fair wages and decent living conditions
for workers and their families; the right to safe and healthy
working conditions; the right to rest and leisure; the right to
form unions and to social security; the right to protection of the
family; the right to physical and mental health; the right to
education (primary education is compulsory for the citizens of
States Parties); and the right to culture and the benefits of
scientific progress and its technological applications.
CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child
This Convention was adopted and opened for signature
and ratification by the United Nations General Assembly on
20 November 1989. It has been in force since 2 September 1990
68
64. and its objective is to create the conditions for the children of the
world to be able to exercise their right to full development and
the harmonious development of their personalities, growing up
in their families in an atmosphere of happiness, love and
understanding. Children, the Convention states, must be
educated in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the United
Nations Charter and, in particular, in a spirit of peace, dignity,
tolerance, liberty, equality and solidarity. To this end, the
Convention lays down a framework of protection against
exploitation and discrimination for all those aged under 18,
starting with recognition of their right to life, to a nationality, to
their identity and to know their parents, from whom they may
not be separated against the latter’s will. The States Parties to the
Convention must adopt the measures necessary to prevent the
illegal removal of children abroad and their illegal retention in
places away from their parents. The Convention also recognizes
the rights of children to health, to education, to formulate their
opinions and to freedom of conscience and religion. It likewise
establishes, for those States Parties that recognize adoption, the
obligation to safeguard the child’s best interests. It also includes
provisions for the protection of children who are mentally or
physically disabled.
OP-CRC-AC: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
25 May 2000 and in force since 12 February 2002. The text
expresses the concern of the international community about the
recruitment, training and use within and across national borders of
children in hostilities by armed groups distinct from the armed forces
of a State, … recognizing the responsibility of those who recruit,
train and use children in this regard, on the basis of which it
establishes the obligation of States Parties to ensure that no
member of their armed forces aged under 18 participates directly
69
65. in hostilities, and that no-one under this age is subjected to
compulsory recruitment. In conformity with this, and in view of
the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
states must raise the age of compulsory recruitment to over 18,
and at lower ages recruitment will only be acceptable if it is
genuinely voluntary.
OP-CRC-SC: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25
May 2000 and in force since 18 January 2002. The text states
that, considering that the Convention on the Rights of the Child
recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic
exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be
hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful
to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social
development, and that among the most worrying cases of child
exploitation is the increasing international traffic in children for
the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography and sex tourism, the States Parties have decided to
expressly ban the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography. For this purpose, the Protocol defines the ‘sale of
children’ as any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by
any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any
other consideration; ‘child prostitution’ as the use of a child in
sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration;
and ‘child pornography’ as any representation, by whatever means,
of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or
any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual
purposes.
70
66. ILO-182: Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour
(Convention 182)
Adopted by the General Conference of the International
Labour Organization (ILO) on 1 June 1999 and in force since
19 November 2000. ILO Member States considered the need to
adopt new instruments to prohibit and eliminate the worst forms
of child labour, to complement the different instruments of
international law that protect the rights of the child, particularly
the 1973 Convention and Recommendation concerning
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment.
The Convention expresses the determination of ILO to
effectively eliminate the worst forms of child labour through
immediate and comprehensive action, taking into account the
importance of free basic education and the need to remove the
children concerned from all such work and to provide for their
rehabilitation and social integration while addressing the needs of
their families. The text identifies the following as the worst forms
of child labour:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as
the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and
forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory
recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution,
for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities,
in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined
in the relevant international treaties, and
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which
it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of
children.
71
