The Western intellectual roots of human security
When Mahbub ul Haq, a Pakistani, ﬁ rst articulated the concept of human security in a 1994 UN Development Programme (UNDP) report as an alternative to territorial and military security through a focus on individual security and sustainable development, he was drawing on a range of antecedents that had long been critical of realist thinking. 1 Indeed, realist responses to his work can be seen in the reluctance of some states to accept it for fear that it might undermine their sovereignty. 2 Its later reincarnation as a crucial element of a liberal international system can be seen in the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ usage of the concept, and in the subsequent High-level Panel Report. 3 Today, human security is taken to be a central concept across much of the UN system and by many member states and donors, although when it comes to the concept of humanitarian intervention, the consensus appears weaker. 4 Many have written about the roots of human security from the perspective of the post-Cold War environment, or its links with the UN system, 5 but little has been written that examines the deeper roots of the concept emanating from a genealogy of mainly western political thought. 6
In its broadest incarnation, human security is broadly deﬁ ned as freedom from want and freedom from fear: positive and negative freedoms and rights. This has broadened the level of analysis in international relations, and brought social and economic insecurities to the fore. Discussion of human security has occurred in the context of the wide acceptance of the liberal peace as being the objective of most forms of intervention in conﬂ ict zones, ranging from democratization to human rights, the rule of law, development, and free-market reform. This has entailed normative changes that have transformed the nature of political community. These developments, and the issues related to human security, have raised the need to consider collaborative action. This also raises the problem of agency
vis-á-vis human security in the context of the securitization of the individual, and in the context of the many actors involved in its provision.