he narrative surrounding security has undergone a profound transformation following the end of the Cold War. The conventional notion of security had its roots in state and national security, a concept initially enshrined in the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648.

State security, rooted in the realist and neo-realist paradigms, primarily revolved around the imperative for a state to safeguard its territorial integrity, autonomy and domestic political order, primarily from the perceived threats posed by other states.

Nonetheless, the paradigm of human security, with its focus on the well-being of individuals, was eloquently expanded upon by Mahbub-ul-Haq in the United Nations Human Development Report 1994, which also introduced the influential Human Development Index.

Although the concept of security has broadened to incorporate elements pertinent to human security in the regional context, practical strides toward achieving human security goals have been, at best, limited.

Security has been an intrinsic aspect of human civilization. It took on a formal character following the articulation of the state and state sovereignty in the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648.

The conventional understanding of state security, closely linked to national security, gained prominence with this initial conceptualisation of the state. It is imperative to emphasise, from the outset, a clear differentiation between defence and security. While defence predominantly involves safeguarding oneself from various perceived threats, security has always had a broader perspective.

Defence may pertain to the protection of one’s self against the other. The other may be another individual or the state and society. Since the Westphalian Treaty, the prevailing interpretation of security, particularly among realist scholars, has been rather narrow and militaristic. It encompasses threat perceptions from both other states and non-state actors.

This viewpoint on security is unmistakably state-centred. The state occupies the central stage and is compelled to amass and wield sovereign power to shield its territorial integrity, sovereignty and autonomy over internal affairs. It safeguards what it defines as the national interest and protects the legitimate residents within its borders.

The realist school of thought in international relations theory firmly establishes states as the ultimate, unchanging actors. For realists, the preeminent concerns are power struggles, power politics, security, strategic advantage, aggression, conflict and war.

Key factors in realist paradigms and their subsequent neo-realist variations revolve around statism, survival and self-reliance. Notably, one strategic analyst has contended that national security can be achieved through five means: deterrence, disarmament, arms race management, arms control, limited warfare and strategic defence initiatives.

The concept of security transcends these militaristic aspects. It also encompasses diverse dimensions of social, economic, political and cultural security, where the central focus shifts from states to individuals.

At the heart of the differentiation between notions of state security and human security lies a broad normative question about who should take precedence. Realist theories and security perspectives prioritise the state. Liberalism, on the other hand, centres around the individual as the primary reference point. An early endeavour to introduce a normative understanding of war, peace and security emerged from the World Order Models Project in 1968, a significant transnational research initiative.

The WOMP theorists laid the foundation for an alternative world order, rooted in four core values: peace; economic well-being; social and political justice; and ecological balance. They introduced the concept of human security as a response to what they saw as Anglo-American ethnocentrism and over-generalisation inherent in the realist notion of state security. Mahbub-ul-Haq later articulated the concept of human security in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1994.

Human security is built on two foundational principles: “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want.” This perspective raises four fundamental questions: security for whom; security of which values; security from what threats; and security by what means? It is evident that this approach places the individual or human at the forefront, marking a significant departure from the state-centric focus of realism.

In addressing the first question, the 1994 HDR asserts that security primarily serves the individual, encompassing their safety, well-being and dignity. Regarding the second question, the HDR emphasises security of seven core values: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security.

Economic security hinges on an individual’s ability to ensure a sustainable income derived from either productive, well-compensated work or a robust social safety net. Food security encompasses an individual’s physical and economic access to essential nourishment, procured through assets, gainful employment or guaranteed income. Health security entails an individual’s access to fundamental healthcare and protection from various diseases and ailments.

In industrialised countries, the leading causes of death are cancer and circulatory diseases, predominantly linked to dietary and lifestyle factors. Developing nations, on the other hand, grapple with infections and parasitic diseases, including acute respiratory infections, diarrhea and tuberculosis. These stem primarily from contaminated environments, particularly polluted water sources and chronic malnutrition.

Environmental security calls for each nation to establish policies aimed at preserving the delicate ecological equilibrium of our planet while maintaining a wholesome physical environment. This necessitates the mitigation of pollution in the land, air and water, enabling humanity to coexist in a tranquil and sustainable manner.

In developed nations, air pollution stands out as a significant environmental threat, whereas poor sanitation in developing countries results in grave water pollution concerns. Moreover, deforestation, cyclones, earthquakes and floods collectively pose formidable environmental threats to humanity.

Personal security pertains to an individual’s capacity to safeguard themselves from a wide array of threats, encompassing state repression, inter-state conflicts, ethnic strife, criminal activities, domestic and street violence, child abuse, suicide and substance abuse.

Community security typically offers individuals a sense of cultural identity within a group, be it a family, community, organisation or ethnic and racial affiliation. These affiliations not only impart a set of values but also provide unwavering support to their members. Political security, in turn, revolves around safeguarding the fundamental human rights of all members of society.

The third question leads to the assertion that the absence of any of the seven facets of human security poses a localised threat. This perspective extends to recognise global threats to human security, such as unchecked population growth, widening disparities in economic opportunities, escalating international migration, environmental degradation, drug trafficking and international terrorism.

As we delve into the final question, the Human Development Report underlines the imperative of fostering global human solidarity and spurring economic growth in a manner that affords every individual equal access to assets, gainful and rewarding employment and economic opportunities.

In addition to these, every person should have the capacity to meet their basic necessities and enjoy fundamental human rights. Moreover, the report underscores the necessity for the United Nations to prioritise preventive diplomacy, preventive development and the overhaul of global institutions.

It is also evident that advocacy groups have a significant role to play in this regard. However, when pondering the question of “security by what means?” the emphasis on the promotion and adherence to human security lies primarily with the state.

Just as an individual is prohibited from killing themselves, the state should face repercussions if an individual’s life is imperiled by factors like hunger, lack of shelter, or inadequate medical care.

This entails respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-aggression and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Thus, there arises an urgent imperative to champion human security, ensuring that the basic needs of every individual are met. It is essential to underscore that the pursuit of state security should not come at the expense of human security. In this model, the individual takes precedence as the chief embodiment of our security concerns. A delicate equilibrium between state security and human security needs to be maintained.

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore