Controversies on the Value of Human Security

Liu Zhijun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.2008.02.014

2008-01-01

Abstract:The term ″Human Security″ was fostered by the United Nations Development Program in the first part of 1990s. From then on, Human Security has rapidly moved to occupy center stage in discussion of foreign policy and other related issues. Different scholars have probed into its significance from aspects of definition, connotation, value basis and application. Critics allege that existing definitions tend to be extraordinarily expansive and vague, encompassing everything from physical security to psychological well-being, which makes it impossible to prioritize policies and actions and provides policymakers with little guidance in the operationalisation. Some argue that it is merely ″old wine in new bottles″, combining traditional concerns about ″freedom from fear″ and ″freedom from want″, roughly parallel to the first and second generation of human rights. Others argue that the concept is ″too idealistic″, and fails to take into account the real-world politics of geopolitical power in a rapidly changing international system. And treating individuals as the referent object of security does not always represent the best means of understanding a particular situation of insecurity. For example, issues of identity and ethnic difference may be ignored. And because of its vagueness and breadth, states may benefit from positive perceptions of Human Security without seeking fundamentally to institutionalize Human Security concerns within political practice. It has the ambition to be a catch-all approach to global problems but is often trapped in unconscious ″cultural centralism″ under the banner of universalism. But advocators insist that the inclusion within the rubric of security (through the Human Security approach) of factors as diverse as environmental change, military security, human rights and development inequality help us to acknowledge the relatedness of these problems in terms of their origins and broad solutions. They believe that the concept's strength lies in its holism and inclusiveness, and definitional expansiveness and ambiguity are its powerful attributes. While those critics might prefer to limit the concept, focusing on some insecurities and excluding others, they insist that Human Security will necessarily remain comprehensive and integrative and the holistic nature of this perspective is particularly valuable to women, who are often more vulnerable than men. Furthermore, they argue that Human Security should be seen as a discourse rather than policy agenda of security, and shouldn't been judged by standards for instrumental concepts. These controversies can be sorted into two categories: those on the theoretical origin of the Human Security approach and those on the definition and explanation forwarded by UNDP. They reflect the divarication on the subjective perception and value judgment of the connotation of security among different international agents.