Notice
जनकृति के जनवरी-फरवरी सयुंक्त अंक को अपलोड किया जा रहा है. 15 अप्रैल तक अंक आप पत्रिका की वेबसाईट से प्राप्त कर सकेंगे

Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Conceptual Diversion?

Human Security:

Paradigm Shift or Conceptual Diversion?

 

 

Ambikesh Kumar Tripathi

Assistant Professor (Political Science)

S.S.M.M.U.S.S.S. Government P.G. College

Dwarahat, Almora

(9450308057)

ambikesh.politics@gmail.com

 


Key Words: Human Security, UNDP, R2P.

 

Human security is the latest ongoing discourse in arena of security studies that has attracted the attention of scholars, policymakers, and various governments at global level to rethink about the idea of security which is in practice since long. Though, the idea of security is not new and has been remain as an essential ingredient of mankind since centuries; Westphalian understanding of security has increasingly come under scrutiny[1] for their well-being of state rather than individuals. ‘Among the most vocal promoters of human security are the government of Canada and Norway, which have taken the lead in establishing a “human security network” of states and nongovernmental organisations that endorse the concept’[2]. Other than these states Japan, Austria, Chile, Ireland, Jordan, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand also subscribe and promote human security. Some promoters argue that the idea of human security represents a new paradigm shift; although, the traditional notion of security is increasingly increasing and the nation-states are investing a large percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) in research and development (R&D) of sophisticated weapons. This paper is a modest attempt to analyse that the idea of human security has really brought a paradigm shift in conceptualisation and praxis of security, or is only a conceptual diversion?          

Idea of Human Security:

People centred security approach emerged from the critique of the narrow and state centred concept of security and has been theoretically conceptualized as human security.’ Human security is a liberal, cosmopolitan idea that individuals, regardless of their citizenship, location, and identity ought to be made secure from a range of fears, threats, and deprivations. It is made intelligible by the politics of applying law and legalism to global politics. Many of the human security discourses and initiatives to have emerged since the end of the Cold War are shaped, mobilised but also limited and constrained, by this wider problematic of the legal constitution of global politics. Human security is also an emerging paradigm in understanding and analysing global insecurities and vulnerabilities. Human security considers poverty and inequality as the root causes of individual vulnerability and holds that a people-centred view of security is necessary for regional, national and global stability.

In 1994, the United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) Human Development Report (HDR) presented a new way of thinking about the integration of security issues and which focuses on protection of individual’s freedoms and securing them from threats and insecurities. In her report UNDP argues, ‘The concept of security has far too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust.... forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives’[3]. The report conceptualises human security as consisting of ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’; further extended by Kofi Annan as freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to live in dignity.[4]. These two main aspects of human security are defined as ‘safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression’, and ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’[5]. This report also defines human security seven dimensions of human security: personal, environmental, economic, political, community, health, and food security[6]. With a ‘people-centric’ security approach human security emphasizes the individual's rights and interests, which are often being ignored by the national government as well as international community. Instead of securing the territory, human security focuses on the protection of individuals from threats such as disease, hunger, unemployment, political oppression and environmental degradation[7]. Thus, a conception of security that is centred above all on the security of the individual may be called human security[8].

 

Conceptions of Human Security:

Bajpai (2003) notes, the genealogy of the idea of human security can be related to, if not traced back, to the growing dissatisfaction with prevailing notions of development and security in the 1960s, 1970, and 1980s. Economics undoubtedly led the way with its critiques of the dominant models of economic development beginning in the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, in International Relations drew attention to the problem of individual well-being and safety in order to construct a more stable and just world order. In the 1980s, two independent commissions (first was the Independent Commission on International Development Issues chaired by Willy Brandt, which issued the North-South report and second was the Independent commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, chaired by Olof Palme, issued the famous Common Security report) contributed to the changing thanking on development and security[9]. But after the Cold War, a call for new thinking in area of security rapidly grew and in 1991 the Stockholm Initiative on Global Security and Governance started to rethink on concept of security other than political rivalry and armaments which focuses on other non-traditional threats that stem from failure of economic development, environmental degradation, excessive population growth and lack of progress towards democracy[10]. Four years later, in 1995, the Commission on Global Governance repeated the sentiments of the Stockholm initiative in her report: ‘The concept of global security must be broadened from the traditional focus on the security of states to include the security of people and the security of the planet’[11]. These commission reports were contributed in articulation of idea of human security in 1990s and it must be added that the concept of ‘human security’, today widely used by a diverse array of governments, international  organizations  and  non-governmental  organizations  (NGOs) in order to challenge state-centred conceptions of security, founds its roots in these commission reports.

Human security is essentially a contested concept that has no single definition today as the available literature shows.  Different scholars, nations and institutions offer different definitions, referent objects, operationalisation and proposed methods of measurement. The EU, Middle power country’s approach such as: Canadian, Japanese and Norwegian, UNDP, various NGOs, and many individual scholars, such as Kofi Annan, Sadako Ogata, Ramesh Thakur, Kanti Bajpai, etc., have all come up with different approaches and definitions for human security; ranging from a narrow sense for prevention of violence to a broad comprehensive view that links development, poverty, human rights and violence together along with traditional security. 

Broad Approach to Human Security: 

UNDP Approach to Human Security:

            The development of the human security framework by the global 1994 Human Development Report (HDR) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was a pioneering step. The report shifted the focus of security from the protection of the state and its borders by military means to the protection of individuals from a wider range of threats to their well-being and security, and by a wider range of measures and policies, from the local and community levels to the national and international arenas. Thus, human security as a distinct notion was introduced in the international arena through a threshold publication, the UNDP’s Human Development Report of 1994, by claiming that:

For too long the concept of security has been interpreted narrowly as security of territory from internal aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust... Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives[12].

Human security was broadly defined as ‘freedom from fear and freedom from want’ and characterised as ‘safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities[13]. The UNDP’s people-centred approach to security is developed with two supposedly mutually-inclusive conceptual phrases: ‘freedom from fear’; and ‘freedom from want’[14] and also lists seven universal components of threat to human security, namely, economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security. UNDP’s human security approach brings together the human elements of security, rights and development. Thus, it displays people-centric, multi-sectoral, comprehensive, context specific and prevention-oriented characteristics. However, UNDP’s notion of human security was criticised as being overly ambitious and all-encompassing and thus resulted in doubts about the feasibility of the operationalisation of the concept.

CHS’ Approach to Human Security: Human Security Now

The Commission on Human Security (CHS), founded by UN Trust Fund for Human Security and co-chaired by Sadako Ogata and Amartya Sen, presented a more expansive and maximalist definition of human security in report and enlarged the concept to a new epistemology of threats and structural forms of violence, i.e. ‘violence built in the structure and [showing] up as unequal power and consequently unequal life chances’[15], as well as structural inequalities and distributional injustices. Report considers structural inequalities and distributional injustices are well-beyond direct violence but causes of global human suffering. The report calls for human security:

[A] response to new opportunities for propelling development, for dealing with conflict, for blunting the many threats to human security. But it is also a response to the proliferation of menace in the 21st century—a response to the threats of development reversed, to the threats of violence inflicted. With so many dangers transmitted so rapidly in today’s interlinked world, policies and institutions must respond in new ways to protect individuals and communities and to empower them to thrive. That response cannot be effective if it comes fragmented—from those dealing with rights, those with security, those with humanitarian concerns and those with development. With human security the objective, there must be a stronger and more integrated response from communities and states around the globe[16].

As CHS notes ‘what people consider to be ‘vital’ – what they consider to be ‘the essence of life’ and ‘crucially important’ – varies across individual and societies. That is why any concept of human security must be dynamic. Therefore the Commission’s approach to human security bridges between poverty and violence – freedom from fear and freedom from want – rather than choosing only one or another[17].

Japan’s Path to Human Security: Freedom from Want

The decision of the Japanese Government in 1997 to incorporate human security into its (foreign) politics was an action on the national level. Since 1997 Japan hosted ‘international conferences on human security to mobilize the support of the world community for conflict prevention, post-conflict demining, resettlement on refugees and the internally displaced, holding of free elections and reconstruction of economic and social infrastructure in conflict afflicted countries around the world’[18]. The conferences and seminars hosted in Japan were supported by an increasing number of scholars and institutions working in the field of human security and promoting the concept. In December 1998, in the context of the ‘Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow’, the then Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi launched the Japanese human security programme based on comprehensively seizing all the menaces that threaten the survival, daily life and dignity of human beings and strengthening efforts to confront threats[19]. In order to enhance her commitment towards human security, Japan has established a Commission on Human Security and followed a more comprehensive approach of human security based on ‘Asia values’ and greater focus on ‘freedom from want’. Over the time the Japanese concept has become more defined and added sudden economic downturns to their agenda of human security in 2003. Japan considers ‘preservation and protection of the life and dignity of individual human being’ as essential human security components and underlines the need of a malleable definition of human security which can incorporate the ‘vital core of all human lives’. Therefore, the Japanese diplomatic Bluebook claimed that human security as defined by the Commission on Human Security’s (CHS) report, Human Security Now (2003), was very similar to the concept of development assistance which Japan had been implementing. Meanwhile, there is strong criticism occurred of Japanese human security programme because of its sole focus on only freedom from want aspect. Konrad (2006) notes that, ‘the human security concept has flourished among scholars while the Japanese freedom from fear definition shies away from humanitarian intervention and human rights issues even on the theoretic track’[20].   

Narrow Approach to Human Security:

Canadian Approach to Human Security: Freedom from Fear

Canada uses human security as a key component of its national security discourse since the 1990s and endorses the minimalist or narrow approach to human security that defends ‘freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights, safety and lives’. In 1996, Canada concentrated its attention on the goal of ‘freedom from fear’ by calling ‘safety for people from both violent and nonviolent threats. Lloyd Axworthy, the then Foreign Minister, played a pivotal role in promoting human security as ‘much more than the absence of military threat. It includes security against economic privation, an acceptable quality of life, and a guarantee of fundamental human rights’[21].

In 1999 Canada organised a middle power conference with Norway and reiterated that the human security, as a people centric new concept based on new tools and measuring rods, is needed to deal with post-Cold War problems. According to this approach human security includes security against economic deprivation an acceptable quality of life and a guarantee of fundamental human rights. The Canadian perspective of human security also presents a number of threats which affect human security like internal conflict and state failure, transnational crime, nuclear proliferation, religious and ethnic discord, state repression, migration, use of land mines child abuse economic under development, unequal international trade etc[22]. Canadian approach to human security is based on following five priorities[23]:

  • Public safety from terrorism, drug trafficking and spread of crime;
  • Protection of civilians from armed conflict, atrocities and human rights violation;
  • Conflict prevention by strengthening the capacity of the international community to resolve violent conflict, building national and local capacity to manage political and social tensions without resorting to violence and by using targeted economic sanctions to reduce the chances of civil war;
  • Accountable and transparent governance to reducing corruption and promoting freedom of expression and encouraging corporate social responsibility;
  • Undertaking peace support operations and bolstering international capacity to undertake peace mission to deal with complex issues.

Thus, Canada seems to represent narrow approach to human security, i.e. ‘freedom from fear’ that seeks to ensure individuals’ safety from direct threat, their physical integrity and satisfaction of basic needs, while the UNDP and Japan government perceive a much wider aspect of security which cannot be tacked through force or military hegemony and suggests that domestic and foreign policy of the nation states should be tuned in order to meet the multifaceted threats affecting human security. Human insecurities are, in UNDP’s approach, classified into various types corresponding to the different aspects of life affected by them. These are economic, food, good health, employment, personal security/safety, dignity, cultural integrity, environment, and political security. This inclusive concept of security is considered as broader approach to human security which adds ‘a life of dignity’ to ‘freedom from want and fear’ and focuses on the need of cooperation between people, civil society, government and international agencies and instrumentalities.

Human Security: Is a Paradigm Shift or a Conceptual Diversion?

After Cold War a new discourse on security has emerged prominently that criticises the old traditional notion of security which was primarily focused on the state security. ‘Although definitions of human security vary, most formulations emphasize the welfare of ordinary people’[24]. Advocates and promoters of this new security concept are governments, non-governmental organisations, various commissions on human security and independent scholars. Some commentators argue that human security represents a paradigm shift in realm of security thinking. Despite their claims, however, it remains unclear whether the concept of human security can replace the state security practice, whereas the state remains as fundamental source and provider of security. Some scholars say that this new emphasis on security supplements the traditional concept of security and is a merely new thinking which proposes fresh dimension of security and for some others it is an empty rhetoric. The underlying question is: whether the concept of human security introduces a paradigm shift or only a new approach in understanding of security? Is this post-cold-war concept relevant in post-9/11 world?

Before the term ‘Human security' came in security studies’ discourse,  three approaches to security, namely ‘Common security’, ‘Collective security’, and ‘Comprehensive security’, were in functioning and policy makers adopted these alternative visions of security to the world. Instead of nuclear and arms-control efforts, these alternative versions of security sought new tools to prevent war along with human rights and humanitarian intervention. The term ‘common security’ was coined in the early 1980s by Bahr and discussed in the Palme Commission’s report (1982), which recommended arms control. The term ‘common Security’ describes the fact that individually, a nation, or for that matter any individual or group, cannot be secure without all other nations, groups, or individuals enjoying security at the same time. Thus, it proposes cooperation among nations so that they can prevent the conflict. The core objective was for joint survival rather than the threat of mutual destruction. ‘Collective security’ strategies in the meantime concentrated on the transfer of power to international authorities such as the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to not only restore peace between states but also within states, through safeguarding of human rights. Therefore, humanitarian interventions were legitimised as ways to promote security. In collective security perspective, the new world order was seen as one where international politics were superseded by domestic politics of a global scale[25]. The term ‘comprehensive security’ was coined in political and academic circles in Western Europe during the 1980s. Both, the academics as well as the policymakers were seeking an approach to security which was broader and deeper than the realist notion of security. However, already in 1973, the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), took a comprehensive view on security, though the approach was named cooperative security. ‘Comprehensive security included threats other than those to territorial integrity and political order, and concentrated on non-state actors and natural catastrophes’[26].

            ‘All these approaches are similar to human security in two ways: (1) they recognise a larger array of threats beyond military threats; (2) they share similar views about the need for multilateralism as a way of dealing with this expanded set of threats’[27], but the security for the state – order and stability – rather than the people is remain main concern. While the above alternative visions focus on the security for the state, human security concentrates on security and all-round well-being of individuals. ‘Therefore, state security becomes a means and not the end of security objectives’[28]. Due to putting the people at centre rather than the state in security concern, the human security scholars and practitioners mark it as a paradigm shift.

            Undoubtedly, the concept of human security arises from the lacunae in existing security paradigms[29], but it could not be call as paradigm shift, rather it supplements to old approaches. Following limitations of state-centric traditional security paradigms has shown the way for human security concept:

  • It cannot explain the civil wars that are today the most prevalent form of armed conflict[30], particularly, armed rebellion within the states;
  • It focuses only to avoid war and conflict and establishes negative peace and don’t focus on structural causes of conflict;
  • It hardly links poverty, deprivation and other human vulnerabilities with conflict and violence; and
  • Non-traditional threats could not be tackled through the state security approach, while post-cold-war world is facing numerous new transnational threats such as: infectious diseases, environmental degradation, human rights violation, etc.

Human security thus stems from the obsolescence of these paradigms due to the declining relevance of the traditional state-based security system, changing notions of sovereignty, transnational threats (such as terrorism), the growing moral imperative to intervene in cases of massive violations of human rights; and other change in the international discourse[31]. Previous approaches were following a narrow trajectory of security, while the concept of human security has broadened the understanding of security, but it does not mean that the introduction of the concept of human security is a paradigm shift. Since the role of the state as provider of security has increased after 9/11; there has been a rearrangement in priorities. Paradigm shift means the old paradigm has been end with its all purposes and replaced by the new one, but the traditional notion of security is remain important yet. And this is why some scholars criticise the human security by saying it an empty rhetoric, but this critic is wrong. Human security has brought subsequent changes and introduced a new dimension in studying of security that has expanded it. Thus, it would be better to say that human security is a significant conceptual diversion rather than paradigm shift.

      

Rethinking Human Security: Insecurities, State and Responsibility

Two decades after it was introduced in security debate, the concept of human security still remains a controversial and contested concept. On the one hand, it has accepted with enthusiasm in many countries, such as Japan, Canada, Norway, Philippines, etc., and in international organisations such as the UN; and new issues were introduced to the security policy agenda, such as the ban on anti-personnel mines, efforts to curb the misuse of small arms and light weapons, or security sector reform (SSR), etc. On the other hand, numerous questions remain unanswered. The definition related arguments between the proponents of a broad approach (‘freedom from want’) and the advocates of a narrow interpretation (‘freedom from fear’) remain unresolved. Despite articulated links to both the development and security fields, alternative definitions abound for human security, and the research and policy agenda for human security remains unclear. There is no general agreement on the role of the state, which can both ensure and threaten the safety of its citizens. There is a growing recognition worldwide that security must include human security and must take into account the needs of people as well as states. The debate on human security has shifted from territorial security and security through arms, to security through human development and access to food, employment, environmental security and right to protect (R2P).

In December 2001, an International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)[32] released its report entitled The Responsibility to Protect, which addressed the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive – and in particular military – action, against another state for the protecting people from risk. The major concern of the idea of R2P is protection of people who considered 'at risk' from the perspective of failure of state's responsibility. The report attempts to distinguish the notion of the ‘R2P’ from a broader concept of human security and defines human security as ‘the security of people – their physical safety, their economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms[33]. The report argues (in the context of outlining the responsibility states have to protect the human security of their own citizens) for a reorienting of national security priorities to include not only military expenditures but also internal social security. Report also acknowledges that not all states will complete this responsibility and if the state fails to do so what the international community should do. In such cases, report argued, internal institutions do have a role in safeguarding human security. Since the concept of security is extended to people as well as to the states, security of individual or community cannot be regarded as only collateral to the national security and needs to protect the people beyond the barrier of boundaries, therefore international community should intervene in order to protection of human security. ‘... there is growing recognition worldwide that the protection of human security, including human rights and human dignity, must be one of the fundamental objectives of modern international institutions’[34], report suggests. The idea of R2P, thus, is based on the premise that if state fails to fulfil its responsibility to protect, it requires a third entity to take action in order to protect the people and prevent further threats[35]. Thus, the centrality of the R2P rests on the notion of intervention that opens new debate about the state’s sovereignty.

It is in this context that one must view the occasional charge that the concept of human security is founded on an interventionist logic and attempts to undermine state sovereignty based on a ‘responsibility to protect’. R2P, as extension of the concept of human security, considers the fragility or failure of the state as source of grave security threats; and many fragile states from Africa, West Asia and South Asia (particularly Pakistan and Taliban led Afghanistan) were considered as the major source of security threats. The fragility of the state evidently invites the third entity’s intervention to rescue and protection of the people.

Though the concept of humanitarian intervention is not new and the legitimacy of such actions, particularly military interventions, has been debated in international arena during 1990s, the concept of R2P has several conceptual and operational flaws. First, the concept of R2P focuses on the narrow aspect of human security and its security considerations is primarily limited to such threat contexts as ‘internal war, insurgency, repression, and other man-made crises rather than natural disasters, the ravages of HIV-AIDS, or anything of that kind. Second, R2P points to the possibility that the state can be cause of security threats to people; such as state-led war crime, crime against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing, while the human security notion does not necessarily consider states or their failure as sources of a security threat[36]. The major operational flaw of R2P is, though its focus to protect people is state’s responsibility, if the state fails to do so R2P allows to international community to intervene. But the questions regarding responsibility – who has the responsibility, with what means the responsibility would be fulfilled, and in what conditions and to what extent the international community can intervene, if a state fails to protect its citizens – is rather ambiguous in the human security notion. These points are dependent on how human security is defined. The proponents of R2P remove the conceptual and operational ambiguities but only by narrowing the notion of human security, while a ‘comprehensive conception of human security does not identify a single source of responsibility because the causes and sources of security threats are often multiple’[37].  

References:          

 

[1] With the end of the cold war the concept of security has increasingly come under scrutiny from scholars and practitioners alike’, see, Bajpai, Kanti (2003), The Idea of Human Security, International Studies, Vol. 40, No. 03, Pp. 195-228

[2] Paris, Roland (2001), Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 02, Pp. 87-102

[3] UNDP (1994), Human Development Report, Pp 22

[4] Tsai, Yu-tai, (2009), The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructive View, International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Autumn/Winter), pp.19-33

[5] Ibid, Pp 23

[6] Ibid, Pp 24-25                                                                                              

[7] Tsai, Yu-tai and We-En Tan (2007), Rethinking Human Security, Tamkang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 32, Pp. 56–75

[8] Bajpai, Kanti (2003), The Idea of Human Security, International Studies, Vol. 40, No. 03, Pp. 195-228

[9] Bajpai, Kanti (2003), The Idea of Human Security, International Studies, Vol. 40, No. 03, Pp. 195-228

[10] The Stockholm Initiative on Global Security and Governance (1991), Common Responsibility in the 1990’s, Paper published by the Prime Minister’s Office, Government of Sweden, Stockholm, Pp. 17-18

[11] The Commission on Global Governance (1995), Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford University Press, New York, Pp. 338

[12] UNDP (1994), Human Development Report, Pp 22

[13] Ibid

[14] These two phrases of human security essentially reminds us Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘Four Freedoms’ speech in 1941, in which he discussed the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of religion and worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. 

[15] Galtung, J. (1969), Violence, Peace, and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, Pp. 170-1

[16] Commission on Human Security (2003), Human Security Now, UN, Pp. 2

[17] Alkire, S. (2003), Concept of Human Security, L. Chen et al. (Eds.), Human Insecurity in Global World, Global Equality Initiative, Asia Centre, Harvard University

[18] Hirono, Ryokichi (2000), Human Security and Conflict Prevention, Japan Review of International Affairs Vol. 14, No. 4, The Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, Pp. 276

[19] Tadjbakhsh, S & Anuradha M. Chenoy (2007), Human Security: Concepts and Implications, Routledge, New York

[20] Konrad, Corinna (2006), The Japanese Approach: Tracks of Human Security Implementation, Human Security Perspectives, Vol. 01, Issue 03

[21] Axworthy, Lloyd (1997), Canada and Human Security: The Need for Leadership, International Journal, Vol. 52, No. 2

[22] Bajpai, Kanti (August, 2000), Human Security: Concept and Measurement, Kroc Institute Occasional Paper #19:OP:1

[23] Tadjbakhsh, S & Anuradha M. Chenoy (2007), Human Security: Concepts and Implications, Routledge, New York, Pp. 31

[24] Paris, Roland (2001), Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2, Pp. 87-102

[25] Tadjbakhsh, S & Anuradha M. Chenoy (2007), Human Security: Concepts and Implications, Routledge, New York, Pp. 73

[26] Ibid, Pp. 73-4

[27] Ibid, Pp. 74

[28] Ibid

[29] Ibid

[30] Ibid

[31] Ibid, Pp. 75-6

[32] The work of ICISS was mainly sponsored by the Canadian government as a response to the request by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to establish principles and processes for using coercive action to protect people in danger. ICISS presented its report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The commission were chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun. While concept of human security is not discussed or elaborated in this report, but it does illustrate how the concept of human security is being taken up and used in wider discussions.

[33] International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2002), The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa, Pp. 20, Quoted from Nishikawa, Yukiko (2010), Human Security in Southeast Asia, Routledge Publication, New York, Pp. 20

[34] International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2002), The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa, Pp. 6

[35] Nishikawa, Yukiko (2010), Human Security in Southeast Asia, Routledge Publication, New York, Pp. 21

[36] Ibid, Pp. 21

[37] Ibid, Pp. 22