Beginning from early of 1990s the world has faced with new challenges of security such as global warming and environmental degradation which threatened significant fields of human life including food

Beginning from early of 1990s the world has faced with new challenges of security such as global warming and environmental degradation which threatened significant fields of human life including food, health, access clean water etc. In the same time, this period is observed with mass violation in different countries such as Yugoslavia in Eastern Europe, Rwanda in Central Africa and so on. Also last two decades has been observed with shift in organized crimes including the drug trafficking, human trafficking, and international terrorism that deeply related with each other. All this non-traditional threats which threaten the world universally, seriously alarmed UN and UN plays a key role to focus international attention on these nontraditional threats in terms of Human Security.
It is no coincidence that, the human security concept firstly explained in its broad meaning in UNDP HDR of 1994. According to UNDP HDR `s definition “…human security is a universal concern. It is relevant to people everywhere, in rich nations and poor. There are many threats that are common to all people – such as unemployment, drugs, crime, pollution and human rights violations. Human security is people-centered. 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 in peace.” In this definition of human security clearly depicted that referent object of human security are people and human security concept embraces all threats to survival, daily life and dignity of human being. But it does not means that human security ignores traditional view of security. “This new emphasis on human security complements the traditional concept of security and represents the emergence of a new paradigm in the field. Real security entails the protection of individuals from such threats as disease, hunger, unemployment, political oppression and environmental degradation.” In this sense of notion UNDP HDR 1994 argue that human security includes both freedom from fear and freedom from want. This idea is rooted in the Franklin Roosevelt’s speech on January 6, 1941: “…freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. … freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.” Freedom from fear and freedom from want are two main components of Human Security. In 1945, the US secretary of state reported to his government on the results of the conference in San Francisco that set up the United Nations. He was quite specific on this point: “The battle of peace has to be fought on two fronts. The first is the security front where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social front where victory mean freedom from want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the world of an enduring peace, …., No provisions that can be written into the Charter will enable the Security Council to make the world secure from war if men and women have no security in their homes and their jobs.”
These “two fronts” make clear that freedom from fear means providing safety of people from violence and freedom from want spells protection of people from poverty. According to UNDP HDR combination of those two notions creates “vital core” of human security which defines what should be secured. It refers to the scope of Human Security which is suggested in the UNDP HDR. Dr. Mahbub ul Haqq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report (1994) and sought to influence the UN’s 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. UNDP HDR 1994 suggests that the scope of global security should be expanded in following seven areas: “economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security.” In brief description for each area I can say that economic security focus on to prevent poverty, to solve unemployment, and reduce poverty rate by achieving economic stability, and promoting socio-economic reforms for sufficient distribution of resources and for sustainable development. Food security emphasis on sufficient satisfaction of people with healthy food, prevention of scarcity of food in poor areas of the world and additionally to provide monitoring on food in order to prevent spreading of gene changed products in the world and within the countries. Health security focus attention to the decease, pandemic illnesses and infections such as HIV/AIDS, H1M1 etc. which can resulte massive death among people. Health and food securities are deeply related with economic security. It is completely clear that only with economic stability and wellbeing can be achieved health and food security. Food security is also related with environmental security. Environmental security threats include environmental degradation caused by human activities, pollution of atmosphere and clean water, natural disasters and so on. In some cases environmental threats affect both health and food security. Personal security stress on both internal and external threats, because personal security is threatened also by interstate wars. In internal level personal security threats include physical torture, ethnic tension, crime, street violence, violence against women and child abuse, suicide, drug use etc. Community security focus attention on the prevention ethnic and religious conflicts, with other words all identity based tensions. People want to live in communities where they feel secure. That is why they tend to live in a societies where they share the same language, culture, traditions in terms of ethnic and religious values. But in the world there are only few mono communities. So today there is one of the main challenges of human security are conflicts in the ethnic and religious level which often caused by limited access to opportunities. Finally political security means protection of people from political repression, human rights abuses etc. Thus, these seven components of HS are vital security areas in 21st century in all over the world. But agenda of HS is flexible and can embrace all kind of security threats. Because in globalized world every insecurity matters are interconnected and need common cooperative solutions which required true cooperation among states in bilateral and multilateral levels in regional and global bases.
Definition and scope of human security shows that it is: a) people centered security dimension; b) universal challenge, significant for people in everywhere in the world without exception, whether they live in rich or poor country; c) easier to ensure through early prevention than later intervention. d) components of HS are interdependent. The seven areas of HS suggested by UNDP 1994 especially economic, food, health and community security are deeply related with each other. For example, unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence. For today it is one of the main security challenges for Europe where right-wing parties encourage people against migrants and seriously stress on reforms for realization strict migration policies.
These broadening agenda of global security shows that human security become more important than traditional understanding of security. Or let me argue that state security changed its meaning and replaced with human security during the last two decades. “The Human Security Centre clearly expresses the purposes of this approach:
” Since the end of the Cold War, armed conflicts have increasingly taken place within, and not between, states. National security remains important, but in a world in which war between states is the rare exception, and many more people are killed by their own governments than by foreign armies, the concept of ‘human security’ has been gaining greater recognition. Unlike traditional concepts of security, which focus on defending borders from external military threats, human security is concerned with the security of individuals…”
In following figure we can see difference between TS and HS.
Table .1

Type of Security

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Referent Object
Responsibility to
Protect

Possible Threats

Traditional Security
The State
The Integrity of the
State Interstate War, Nuclear
Proliferation,
Revolution

Human (non-traditional) security
People and their communities
The integrity of people Disease, Poverty,
Natural Disaster,
Violence, Landmines, Human Rights abuses so on…

But it does not means that we have to look those two notion of security separately. Because today in many cases lack of cooperation between the countries which create serious obstacles for ensuring Human Security policies in such regions as South Caucasus significantly related unresolved territorial conflicts between the states.
1.2 Two theoretical approach toward Human security
As it explained above Human Security is people centered and it is new approach and new paradigm in the field of security studies. Mainly there are two theoretical perspectives which debate on this new understanding of security: Neo-realist, and (Social) Constructivist views on (human) security. Logically debates is going around three main questions:
a) what should be protected?;
b) by whom?;
c) and with which means?

Neorealist approach
Neo-realist view base on the primacy of states within the broadened agenda of security. This approach also known as “new thinking on security “. Neo-realists (Walt, Helga, Nye, Lynn-Jones, Gat, John Shy, Williams, Buzan et al ) argue that without key role of state there can not be security in the world. According to neorealist scholars the state represents the primary guarantee of security, authority, and obligation. With other words security of citizens, territorial integrity and sovereignty are main responsibilities of the state. Neo-realists argue that these obligations of the state is threatened from outside. They think that true cooperation among states is not possible. Because states often cheat each other. They do it not only for their own benefit. But also because they do not trust each other and believe that others will cheat and they must behave adequately. So all states, according to neo-realists, focus on their own national interests and act solely. Such explanation of international relations system represent claims about international anarchy. Therefore security is the most important concern the state. From this point of view neo-realists believe that only state as a key actor able to provide territorial integrity and security for its citizens by using military force against threats from outside. They argue that anarchy still is a nature of international relations. Therefore in the security dilemma situation state behave self-interested and tries to develop military power. But in order to have strong military, state has to have strong economy. In the contemporary age without cooperation with other states and international organizations in bilateral and multilateral levels, it is not possible to improve economy. So it means that economic security comes first than military force for ensuring security of people as one of the primary obligation of state. On the other hand post-cold war era is observed with environmental, socio-political and human rights challenges. This type of non-traditional threats become more and more significant which seriously alarmed all states even if neo-realists generally argue that it can not be accepted as primary threats. But it recognized by some neo-realists such as “Brad Roberts (1990), Myron Weiner (1992/93), and Beverly Crawford (1994) – who attempts to broaden the neorealist conception of security to include a wider range of potential threats, ranging from economic and environmental issues to human rights and migration. This challenge has been accompanied by discussions intended to deepen the agenda of security studies by moving either down to the level of individual or human security or up to the level of international or global security, with regional and societal security as possible intermediate points. … Others(Palme Commission 1982; Kupchan and Kupchan 1991; Carter, Perry, and Steinbruner 1992; Dewitt 1994) have remained within a state-centric approach but have deployed diverse terms (common, cooperative, collective, comprehensive) as modifiers to “security” to advocate different multilateral forms of interstate security cooperation that could ameliorate, if not transcend, the security dilemma” . Of course neo-realism do not ignore cooperation among states for ensuring security together. Because in globalized world increasing interdependence reduces the ability of state to provide national security alone. Today states are challenged with internal threats (civil unrest which usually observed with collective violence rather than external). But neo-realists do not step back from their classic view about security. In the same time neo-realists see human security concept as supplementary or even symbolic term. They think there is no any need to use this new paradigm. Because neorealist approach to the security embraces all fields of security. On the one hand neo-realism generally emphasis on classic view on security where state is soul protector, which provides security for the integrity of state sovereignty for its citizens with other words people by using military power. On the other hand, ” … neo-realism leave us with few pointers as to how human security objectives might be achieved without subordinating human security to national security and to global stability conceived as a rough equivalence of material power.” In this sense neo-realists such as Buzan et all, argue that the ‘straitjacket’ militaristic approach to security that dominated the discourse during the Cold War was ‘simple-minded’ and led to the underdevelopment of the concept. He subsequently broadened it to include political, economic, social and environmental threats, in addition to those that are militaristic. Although Buzan examines security from the three perspectives of the international system, the state, and the individual, he concludes that the most important and effective provider of security should remain the sovereign state. Gelb Leslie in his famous article, “GDP now matters more than force”, argues that today main concern for nation-state is to have strong economy in order to have strong military power. Survival, self preservation and therefore security are thus, according to a neo realist, best achieved by having a strong military and preparing for war whether it comes or not . According to Tomas Hobbs Waltz states that “among men, as among states, anarchy, or the absence of government is associated with the occurrence of violence”. The Hobbesian attitude that realists take towards security in International Relations was particularly popular in the bi-polar world of the cold war, an era of arms racing and zero sum politics. However even during this time challenges emerged to neo-realist conceptions of security and since the end of the cold war it could be argued that this viewpoint is looking increasingly worn out. However there is no doubt that even now neo-realism base on traditional view of security and components human security is considered as supplementary elements which help to ensure security more effectively. With other words as Buzan said in his famous work “New Patterns of Global Security in the 21th Century”, political, economic, social, environmental etc. are additional elements of security that allow to provide further strengthening the military security . Because neo-realists argue that military threats are always possible . They give examples from recent experiences of intervention to Afghanistan and Iraq more recently Russian intervention to Georgia(August war 2008) etc. Thus neo-realism emphasis that first of all sovereignty, territorial integrity and population should be protected from outside threats and by military forces. So we can see that Neo-realism especially emphasis on materialist aspects of security. Because neo-realists focus on military security. Even when they spoke about protection of population they mean military protection of people from outside threats.

Social Constructivist Approach

Human security is explained by constructivism more clearly and successfully. Instead of material understanding constructivism base on ideational understanding of security phenomena Constructivist approach is considered the primary source of HS. For example in UNDP HDR is argued that:
“the world will never be secure from war if men and women have no security in their homes and in their jobs.”
This argument is completely based on (social) constructivist view.
“Constructivism has deeper roots; it is not an entirely new approach. It also grows out of an old methodology that can be traced back at least to the eighteenth-century writings of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. According to Vico, the natural world is made by God, but the historical world is made by Man. History is not some kind of unfolding or evolving process that is external to human affairs. Men and women make their own history. They also make states which are historical constructs. States are artificial creations and the state system is artificial too; it is made by men and women and if they want to, they can change it and develop it in new ways” . In this sense I wish argue that man and woman with other words human being is the main object of (social) constructivist view on security. According to this view I can say that changing definition of security is deeply related human`s expectations and new challenges which humanity faced with in post-cold war era in both material and non-material. Constructivism does not ignore non-material aspects of security but especially emphasis on ideas, values and norms. “Everything involved in the social world of man and women is made by them. The fact that it is made by them makes it intelligible to them. The social world is a world of human consciousness: of thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses, of signs, signals and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings, such as states and nations.” So according to constructivist approach importance of material power can only be determined by ideas. With other words norms, values, rights and rules (ideas) are determinants of material power. Based on these ideas different policies are made by policy makers for ensuring security of people by using material power. With other words constructivism emphasizes the importance of the non-materialistic aspects of international society, but without denying the substance of society, such as economic development or material needs and wants.
For interpretation Human Security through constructivist view Yu-tai Tsai suggests six observations. I used here four out of six which are more important in the conceptualization of human security:
” a)All knowledge is composed of social structures which guide the nature of knowledge and social significance. Both of these rely on human perception, which plays a decisive role in all human actions. The concept of human security has gradually developed through a series of initiatives and academic reports by multi-national, independent commissions of experts, academics and intellectuals. For example, non-governmental organizations (NGO) and civil society in general play a major role in the study and advocacy of human security concerns, and are involved in practically all human security issues;
b) The emergence of the concept of human security reflects the influence of values and norms on security studies, as opposed to the influence of national security. This also demonstrates a change in international relations, identities and interests, and is best explained with reference to constructivist thought;
c)Since they are constructed out of concepts, identity and interests are neither unchanging nor endless, and vary with the emergence of new issues and concepts. This can be seen as a revision of human security, raising questions concerning political economy, sovereign states, and political community. When people start to think of common interests, the definition of security will become people-centered. On the one hand, there is the conviction that states are responsible for regulating the actions of its individual citizens, and on the other hand, individuals are responsible for violating international human rights and humanitarian law;
d)In the 1990s, realism and liberalism were criticized for their overemphasis on material concerns and for failing to take into account subjective, psychological, and human elements. Constructivism attempts to challenge established world views which have been set in place by material concerns. Constructivism and human security have much in common, and human security can be seen as an application of the tenets of constructivism. Constructivism reinterprets traditional material, state-centric society; similarly human security reinterprets traditional theories of military force and national security.”
Many constructivist scholars (Alexander Wendt, Marta Finnomera, Nicolas Onuf, Peter Katzenstain) argue that (human) security is a matter of the identity and interests of countries. Identity and interests determine interaction among states. It helps to derive collective identity, cultural identity, national preferences, language and norms. For example Wendt emphasis on importance of collective identity. He argues that interdependence among states creates collective identity and encourages cooperation. According to him human security is a product of the values of collective identity. “Wendt has focused on interaction between states in international system and ignored non-systemic sources of state identity such as domestic political culture. According to Price and Reus-Smit, Wendt’s approach is called systemic constructivism.” In this sense of notion, the definition of human security by Japanese sponsored Commission on Human Security is very interesting and creates clear picture of constructivist view on human security: ” … It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity.”
Another constructivist approach takes HS as new preference of national politics of states. For example Marta Finnomera focuses on changing national preferences. She`s argument is that rules, IOs and values change national preferences. From this point of view human security emerges in the process of altering preferences of countries. And this process is led by the international community. She claims that national interests is formed according to norms and standards created by international community. For Nicolas Onuf language and norms are main determinants of security-building through social interaction. According to Onuf language and rules shape the foundations of the constructivism and human being is the key point of study and the main object of human security. He also argue that, language has become one of the essential components of building HS. Other constructivists such as Peter Katzenstain emphasis on cultural identity based constructivist view on human security. He approaches to the human security as new type of understanding of national security and tries to explain that national interests is formed through social interactions. Because national identity alters a country`s interests and actions. In this sense Human Security is emerged from the shaping of culture and identity. “Taking Japan as an example, after going through a period of extreme militarism and eventual defeat in World War II, various divergent memories and interpretations gave rise to intense debate. Following a period of internal political struggle, an undisputed collective identity was generated, and economic policy and security became the nation’s main priorities.” According to these constructivists I can argue that constructivism and human security are new approach, language, view and interpretation of security and international relations. Thus, “… underlying argument is that behavior, interests, and relationships are socially constructed, and can therefore change. Values and ideas can have an impact upon international relations; norms, systems, and relationships can change as an aggregation of agent-oriented processes”
In international relations constructivism and human security base on the same ideas. Both of them emphasis on security, interaction and development of people and their communities. If we compare constructivist approach with neo-realist we can see that neo-realism would not be sympathetic to the concept of human security, which relies upon the significance of agent-oriented processes, the emergence of non-state forces, and the impact of ideas and values. Constructivism, however, helps to explain these phenomena. As a body of ideas, human security is having an impact in a similarly constructivist manner. States are acknowledging that, on the basis of new understanding, certain forms of economic and political organization are more conducive than others to peace and stability within communities; that conflict within states has an impact upon the international system that disrupts the regularity of economic and political interaction and threatens security; and that certain norms and values can be productively shared as a minimum standard of cooperation.
It is completely clear according to constructivism that there is no any given threats. Threats are constructed through interactions between individuals, societies and states. Even many environmental problems such as global worming, clean water etc. occur as a result of human activities. More clear comparison we can find in the writings of neo-realist Barry Buzan and constructivist Ken Booth. According to Buzan militaristic view of security that have played primary role during Cold War period was unsophisticated approach and resulted with underdevelopment of concept. In his work “People, States and Fear”, Buzan broadened it to include political, economic, social and environmental threats, in addition to those that are militaristic. He also focus on three elements or units of security: the international system, state and individual. Buzan argues that most effective provider of security is the state.
Ken Booth also supports broadening agenda of security. But he argues that the state must be dislocated as the primary referent of (human) security, and include as an alternative a broad range of non-state actors, such as individuals, ethnic and cultural groups, regional economic blocs, multinational corporations (MNCs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and just about all humankind. He try to introduce human security more important than state security. Consequently, both approaches on human security advocate the importance of broadening conceptualization of phenomena. But neo-realists (Buzan et all) argue that most important and effective provider and promoter of human security is the state. But constructivists such as Booth argue that human security is more important than state security and human security can be effectively provide by IOs, NGOs, MNCs through cooperation among different societies and states within the IOs. That is why as it advocates in UNDP HDR 1994 human security is important in national, regional and global security levels. But it doesn`t means that neorealistic view (Buzan) have to be completely ignored. Because in reality states are key actors for ensuring human security but not lone actors. There is no any doubt that true cooperation among states without their will is not possible. IOs are other important actors but if national interests of states are not taken account IOs can not be enough effective to ensure security. Especially in regional level of human security without intraregional cooperation ensuring human security is not possible. Barry Buzan in his work Regional Security Complexes Theory explains importance of regional security for global (human) security. In next chapter I will try to describe and explain importance of Human security for ensuring regional security by using some related elements of both neo-realist and constructivist views.