Human security:

emerging concept of security in the twenty-first century

Francisco ROJAS ARAVENA

A
t the start of the twenty-first century, Latin America shows significant weaknesses in coping
with the consequences of the process of globalization. Instability in the region has increased,
and that has a significant effect on most of the population. Even though the main traditional
security issues have been overcome in the region and Latin America has not made any substantial
contribution to global instability, the region is far from having policies that promote people’s security—
human security. Moreover, the intra-national nature of conflicts increases the vulnerabilities of millions
of Latin Americans. Today, the search for a common security concept in the region is a basic challenge
for the Rio Group, for the Organization of American States and its Hemispheric Security Committee
and for all the region’s states. Civil society organizations and academic institutions, such as FLACSO,
can play an important role in this task.
We are seeing the emergence of new transnational actors and non-state actors with significant
capacities for global action. This is an important change in international relations and in the primacy of
the interaction between various actors. The twenty-first century also demonstrates more strongly than
in previous eras the need to solve the problems of millions of human beings who are adversely affected
by enormous and growing political, economic, social, health, personal and cultural insecurities. A
significant part of the world’s population suffers from tremendous vulnerability in an unfair system
with increasing regional and global interdependence. Consequently, (in)security is global, even though
its manifestations may differ from region to region and from country to country.1
A core concern is to progress towards the construction of a new global order capable of placing
human beings at its centre and for states, which continue to be the actors with the greatest relative
power, to be able to efficiently guarantee people’s security and contribute to overcoming the
vulnerabilities and difficulties of hundreds of millions of human beings in acceding to progress and
development.
Today there are increased opportunities for cooperation in the international system and in various
geographic regions. The revolution in communications, the new wave of democracies around the
world and globalization itself have contributed to universalizing the values and principles stipulated in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Promotion of, and respect for, this declaration requires
increased partnerships and more cooperation.2
Approaching global politics from a human interest perspective, such as that developed by Mel
Gurtov, allows one to compare value matrices. This value distinction originates from different theoretical
perspectives.3 The realist theory looks at international problems and stresses conflict, which means
that cooperation between the different actors is not properly gauged. The transnational ‘corporate-
globalist’ view stresses economic aspects and the hegemony of a capitalist model of production and
Francisco Rojas Aravena is Director of the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO)-Chile.
two • 2002 HUMAN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA

division of labour. Even though these ‘rules of the game’ establish overall preservation, they are seen to
be a zero-sum game compared to other values. In the absence of any shared values, both realism and
the corporate-globalist approach stress competitiveness as the basis for constant conflict and rivalry.
When one looks at the world with the new global humanist perspective, different values are
stressed (see Table 1). The need for a more holistic approach means asking the core question: Who
speaks for the planet? Based on this question, one looks for other approaches in international relations,
which implies thinking about relations in the international system as a ‘people issue’.4
This approach means that one can relate different problems to new priorities. The main priority
must be peace. This is directly associated with social aspects and economic justice, political justice,
human governance and common responsibility for a balanced environment.

Table 1. Alternative values in main theories

Realism Corporate Globalism Global Humanism

Institutional Negotiation Access Accountability
Influence Hierarchy Management
Mission Influence Equal opportunities
Control Consumption Decentralization
Regulations Systems of alliances Capitalism Basic needs
Hegemony Global culture Interdependence
National mission Egalitarian interdependence International regimes
Protectionism Laissez-faire ‘One world’
Intervention Integration International rights
Structure Maintenance of system Maintenance of system Transformation of system
Power blocks Liberal order Global order
Source: Mel Gurtov, 1999, Global Politics in the Human Interest, Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner, pp. 25–26.

Conditions currently exist to form an international coalition of states and civil society organizations
to support and promote projects aimed at establishing greater security for people and their development
as the core of international security. The United Nations is encouraging this point of view by promoting
international law that seeks to guarantee peace and governance and foster positive incentives. ‘An
innovative international approach will be needed to address the source of insecurity, remedy the
symptoms and prevent the recurrence of threats which affect the daily lives of millions of people.’5
The goal set by the United Nations in terms of security is a world free from fear. Achieving it
entails acknowledging a new set of international circumstances, as typified by the diminished importance
of interstate conflicts and increasing importance of intrastate conflicts. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s
Millennium Report, entitled We the Peoples,6 stresses that more than five million people died in this
type of internal war in the 1990s. There were also mass migrations, refugee crises, destruction of
infrastructure and environmental change. These events violate the basic human rights of millions of
people and make it hard to create conditions for peace as the foundation for building a better world.
Analyses from the United Nations indicate that conflicts are more frequent in regions with poor
countries, so the challenge of protecting more vulnerable populations is even greater. The above poses
a global, and also regional, dilemma regarding the most suitable mechanisms for achieving stability,
peace and fostering cooperation. Even though one cannot completely disallow intervention, it has
shown that in most cases it is not the best option for settling conflicts. The same is true of the system of
sanctions. In this framework, operations for maintaining and imposing peace must be reviewed. In the

6
Human security two • 2002

type of conflict that emerges as the most relevant at the start of the twenty-first century, control of
small arms becomes just as important as control of nuclear weapons. All of this marks a change in the
perspective of the main international actors regarding situations of tension and conflict and, on a more
general level, regarding security concepts.
The international system changed dramatically in less than a decade. In the type of conflict that
Not only did the disappearance of the Soviet Union definitively mark this emerges as the most relevant
change, but there were also substantial changes that accumulated over time at the start of the twenty-first
and are expressed with particular strength in the post-Cold War context. The century, control of small arms
number of state actors participating in the institutionalized international system becomes just as important as
has multiplied by at least four times since the United Nations was set up in control of nuclear weapons.
1945. We have seen the emergence of other actors with increasingly more
influence on international relations—not just international agencies capable of changing their
surroundings, but a series of transnational forces expressed with particular strength in multinational
companies and non-government organizations. The communication explosion, technological advances
and globalization itself have further accelerated the changes. This is mainly expressed in the state—the
main actor—having less power.
States ceased to enjoy monopolistic control or to have the capacity to establish and promote
actions in six basic areas.
• Communications are no longer controlled by the state. The Internet is the best example; radio and
television are also good.
• Technological development depends more on the private sector than on the state. This affects
investment capabilities from genetic techniques and cloning to technological developments designed
for war.
• Financial transactions flow around the world and generate regional and global crises with little
capacity for intervention by the state.
• Although states reinsure investments, their ability to control decisions about where to invest and
from where to get investments is minimal.
• International migration and the ability to control the movement of people has also diminished.
• Trade has increasingly opened up, and states have evident problems to establish controls and
restrictions.

The above means that threat perceptions have been generated that are different than traditional
ones, and mechanisms of action to cope with them seem, and in many cases actually are, antiquated.
The world has more information. Links are better. Political and social events in a country or region do
not leave those who perceive them on the other side of the world indifferent.7 Economic decisions
made in one part of the world have direct consequences on economic growth and sustainability in
other areas. This evidences the existence of substantial changes in the basic concept of sovereignty and
demonstrates the reduced capabilities of nations to cope with their main problems.8 Hence, coordinating
policies, establishing regulations and generating international regimes based on shared values are essential
points in designing a new international system for the twenty-first century. Only the ability to act jointly
will enable states to recover their abilities to generate, together with other actors, a legitimate order
capable of building a world free from threats and fear.
The basic concept that enables security to be understood in the post-Cold War period is the
concept of cooperation. This concept emerges in all reports systematizing progress and interpreting the

7
 two • 2002 HUMAN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA

changes in the world. It also plays an important role in divergent views, both for preventing and for
promoting peace and international security. New problems that must be incorporated into the concept
go beyond military aspects; hence, elements of cooperation are essential. The development of human
security concepts must be placed within this framework.9
During the Cold War, Latin America was perceived, or perceived itself, within a conceptual
framework defined by the bipolar conflict. The main threat was the extra-continental enemy. This
reasserted tendencies from the pre-Second World War period. At the start of the twenty-first century,
the region’s countries are immersed in a process of debating and reformulating concepts of security. A
conceptual transition is taking place from a Cold War perspective that visualized an enemy expressed
in strongly military actions carried out by a state, to a post-Cold War perspective in which threats are
diffused, the weight of military factors has diminished and many
A conceptual transition is taking place of the threats appear not to be linked to state actors, and even
from a Cold War perspective that visualized not to be linked to any particular territory.
an enemy expressed in strongly military
actions carried out by a state, to a post-Cold We can say in general, however, that the end of the Cold
War perspective in which threats are War has led to a reappraisal of the main theoretical matrices
10
diffused, the weight of military factors has used to evaluate international problems. This will enable
diminished and many of the threats appear progress to be made towards a new paradigm that, while
not to be linked to state actors, and even recognizing conflict and confrontation, places greater emphasis
not to be linked to any particular territory. on working together. This change requires tremendous political
will on the part of core actors and specific forms of coordination.
Development of theories about international regimes11 and about forming global public goods12
has acquired greater significance and importance, as have also contributions to negotiation theories13
and practical instruments to relieve tension.14 Theoretical exploration of this field will generate suitable
knowledge to improve multilateral relations and the results arising from them; especially those results
capable of changing relations in the international system, beginning with cooperative multilateralism.15

Human security: an emerging concept

New vulnerabilities demand holistic perspectives. The concept of security at the beginning of the
century can be articulated based on relating the concepts of international security, state security and
human security. The way in which that relationship is established will simultaneously meet global
needs and the needs of states, people and peoples. To the extent that vulnerabilities and threats to
international security increase, pressure will be put on states to take action in a context such as the one
that we have defined, in which the state has less resources of real power. Hence, it is essential to foster
more multilateralism— cooperative multilateralism, or correspondent multilateralism. In turn, interstate
crises and conflicts affect human security and international stability. So it is essential to achieve stability
in interstate relations by demilitarizing the links. Furthermore, human security demands are made on
both the state and the international system. The influence of civil society organizations in promoting
this level of security is essential.
Each dimension has its own logic. In international security, it is global aspects, interdependent markets
and the weight of state actors, international organizations and non-state actors. Macro definitions are made
at this level, and global and/or regional regimes are promoted. Stability is a public good to be encouraged.
State security is classical security and involves aspects linked primarily to sovereignty and border
issues. The weight of military forces and the balance of forces, as well as concepts associated with
dissuasion and defence take place at this level.

8
Human security two • 2002

Human security addresses more local dimensions, although they involve large masses of humanity.
It also addresses global issues, such as environmental matters and pandemics. These types of issues are
not traditionally approached at the other two levels of security.
Building a holistic view requires emphasizing that each level must produce specific answers in at
least three areas: use of force, prevention of conflicts and international cooperation. Increases in
security at one level do not replace nor eliminate demands at other levels. On the contrary, insecurity
at one of the three levels affects the other levels. From that point of view, human security is an emerging
issue, which can give greater cohesion to interaction between international security and state security.
This outlook, which is greater than the sum of its parts, does not mean expanding the concept of
security. To expand would entail militarizing different areas or ‘scrutinizing’ everything that is important.
Rather, new perspectives imply better coordination between levels.
Four substantial elements need to be emphasized in today’s security landscape:
• International security extends beyond its military components;
• International security is transnational, global and interdependent;
• International security is produced by a plurality of actors, the state is no longer the exclusive actor;
and
• International security in the twenty-first century has enlarged its agenda and demands that actors
work together.

Emphasis on which factor has primacy in the human security, state security and international
security trio may vary depending on the scenario. In most, the weight of coordination will fall on state
security, because the state continues to be the main international actor. Yet some geographical regions,
such as Africa, international security and its main actors could be a larger centre of influence. For
example, the response capability of the international system might predominate in the face of political
crises in weak or disappearing states.
The Secretary-General’s Millennium Report says that the world is progressing towards a new
understanding of the concept of security. ‘Once synonymous with the defence of territory from external
attack, the requirements of security today have come to embrace the protection of communities and
individuals from internal violence.’ It adds, ‘The need for a more human-centred approach to security
is reinforced by the continuing dangers that weapons of mass destruction, most notably nuclear weapons,
pose to humanity: their very name reveals their scope and their intended objective, if they were ever
used.’16 In rethinking and reformulating the notion of security, a more comprehensive concept that is
capable of addressing the different aspects that affect and influence the life and death of human beings
needs to be built.
Starting in 1994 the multilateral system began to develop a concept of human security that has
been receiving increasing attention in multilateral agencies. It is being transformed into a point of
reference for the main global security trends of the twenty-first century. As a matter of fact, the 1994
Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) presented its
analysis on new dimensions of human security and defined them based on two main components—
freedom from fear and freedom from want. The UNDP indicates that these two components form
part of the origin and foundation of the United Nations. In this regard, it emphasizes that ‘the world
can never be at peace unless people have security in their daily lives.’ The human security concept
presented by the UNDP groups seven categories of threats that affect various spheres of action: economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security
and political security.17

9
 two • 2002 HUMAN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA

The capacity to generate preventive measures18 is, therefore, the central point of international
action and of the governing agencies of the international and regional systems.19 In this regard, the
United Nations faces the urgent challenge and necessity to establish efficient strategies in preventing
long- and short-term conflicts. Moreover, the United Nations is interested in increasingly targeting
preventive actions in the sphere of international security as a crucial element in progressing towards a
world free from fear. ‘As the United Nations has bitterly and repeatedly discovered over the last
decade, no amount of good intentions can substitute for the fundamental ability to project credible
force if complex peacekeeping, in particular, is to succeed.’20
The legitimate delegation of authority by the United Nations for use of force is considered,
therefore, to be a substantial instrument. As the same report then states, however, ‘force alone cannot
create peace; it can only create the space in which peace may be built.’
This assertion is the basic link that allows one to reconsider the relationship between peace, the
use of force and political conditions. Political will, restrictions on the use of force in dispute settlement
and the development of efficient measures of dissuasion will make more space possible for politics and
for building peace.
Human security is a wide-ranging concept that demonstrates the weaknesses and vulnerabilities
of human beings, as well as their potential. Opportunities for growth and development are increasingly
linked, yet can become sources of insecurity. Global interconnection
Political will, restrictions on
acquires more significance and importance each day. Reducing risks implies
the use of force in dispute
greater coordination of national and global policies. The experiences of
settlement and the development of
recent years show that it is essential to agree on the design and then on
efficient measures of dissuasion
establishing and executing the international regimes that guarantee a
will make more space possible for
consensual international order. It is the international regimes that can
politics and for building peace.
ensure protection for people. Vulnerabilities will be able to be overcome
based on the action of international regimes. Coordinating policies inside international regimes will
make it possible to increase opportunities for more equal development. Progress can only be made
through collaboration. Cooperative global multilateralism and national democracies are the best
guarantees to ensure development and protection for people.
Human security may be analysed and understood from different variables (see Table 2). In the
basic document of the international seminar on ‘Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability’, professor
Jorge Nef21 proposes at least five dimensions—ecology, economy, society, politics and culture. Each of
these variables can be visualized at different levels. In this regard, I would like to emphasize how they
are linked mainly to two crucial elements—globalization and the use of force. Examining these variables
enables us to target and structure policy recommendations based on a concept, such as human security,
that is still being developed and discussed.
Globalization has universalized such values as human rights, democracy and the market.22 This
‘universalization’ has a strongly western flavour. Associated technological and economic processes
have generated greater global interdependence with both positive and negative aspects, such as increased
trade, wider dissemination of scientific knowledge and more global information. There is also greater
danger to the environment, terrorism has acquired a global dimension, organized crime is worldwide,
and financial crises know no borders. Generating stability and global governance without proper
institutions is hard. Significant deficiencies can be observed in this area. In turn, there is increasing
differentiation and multiplication of international actors and that has a bearing on the degree of
importance and means of power with which each one deals with the processes and seeks to influence
future courses of action. A vision of the future is essential. In this framework within the international
system’s current period, various different global concepts in specific areas such as security have not
been honed.

10
Human security two • 2002

Table 2. Variables implicated in human security

Variables Ecology (life) Economy (wealth) Society (support) Politics (power) Culture (knowledge)
Environmental Economic capital Social capital Political capital Cultural capital
capital
Effects Sustainability Prosperity Equality Peace Wisdom
Disaster Poverty Inequality Violence Ignorance
Globalization A world of Dark side of Refugees Governance Identities
associated effect, globalization and Migrations Global regimes Values
such as the competition, Hyper- Cooperation/
‘greenhouse more inequality urbanization Conflict
effect’
Use of force Bio-terrorism Financial crisis Polarization Landmines Intolerance and
Cyberterrorism Ungovernability Child soldiers religious wars
Money Rebellion Small arms Local identities
laundering Citizen security Traditional clashing with
disarmament national and global
ones

Human security visualizes a new global order founded on global humanism. The core issue is to
solve the population’s basic needs within the framework of globalization and interdependence. This
delicate balance demands, on the one hand, a tendency to unify behaviour, consumption and ideals
centred on universal values and, on the other, the requirement to recognize and respect diversity and
particular identities and cultures.
We have seen, however, that globalization also increases differences and does not—in and of
itself—meet any needs. It also has an adverse effect on cultural practices and national and local identities.
All of this is taking place in a context of economic and social polarization in various areas of the world.
The result is local ungovernability, which transfers instability to the
In the case of human security, we
global system and regional sub-systems. A ‘zero-sum’ security concept
can assert that the vulnerabilities of one
asserts that there is no absolute security and that the greater security
are manifested as vulnerabilities of all.
of one actor must mean a greater degree of insecurity for another.
In the case of human security, we can assert that the vulnerabilities of one are manifested as vulnerabilities
of all. For example, in Latin America this requires that we pay greater attention to and seek more
alternatives for the Colombian conflict.

Security: Latin American perspectives

The various regions and countries of Latin America and the Caribbean evidence a high degree of
heterogeneity. Nonetheless, we are considered a region. There are substantial differences among us
and, in some cases, these are on the increase. There is, however, a broad base for cooperative action
based on common languages and culture and expressed in shared interests in numerous areas.
One of the substantial deficiencies of our region is not being able to speak with one voice. We
find it hard to coordinate positions and foster international or even regional projects in concert. Without
increased coordination, there will be no possibility of influencing the design of global rules.23 Re-
launching the Rio Group might go a long way towards this objective.

11
two • 2002 HUMAN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA

Numerous trends suggest, although with no guarantee, that Latin America can make a qualitative
leap in the field of international security. These trends include:
• An important cycle of border conflicts has ended.
• Sub-regional cooperation and integration have increased and, hence, regional opportunities can
be identified.
• Despite globalization, we are a marginal or rather a peripheral region where strategic issues are
concerned. This opens up positive opportunities for new areas of cooperation.
• Latin America is a denuclearized region, as codified in the Treaty of Tlatelolco, free from weapons
of mass destruction.
• We learned from the 1990s that international cooperation in security issues requires a design and
architecture. The Cold War institutions have become obsolete.
• Although results have yet to be achieved, efforts have been made to create new security regimes
and to design new public goods in that area.
• There is renewed dialogue in summit diplomacy; although the operational level is low, it has strong
prospects.
• Primary progress in goodwill and cooperation in security issues takes place at the sub-regional level.
• Track II diplomacy has played an important role in the region. This type of diplomacy must be
fostered and expanded.
• The more international security there is, the more democratic governance and human security will
be emphasized.

In spite of the potential of these trends, there are important deficiencies that must be overcome.
A primary goal is to build and develop a common concept of international security in the Americas. As
a region, we need a holistic concept that is able to embrace aspects of traditional security together with
new threats and incorporate levels and dimensions relative to human beings. Highlighting peace as an
essential value is a constant task. Condemning terrorism and indiscriminate violence against civilians is
a requirement and objective associated with the search for peace.
A common concept of Latin American security will give us:
• More cooperation, participation and interstate coordination, while at the same time reducing
militarization and conflicts;
• Increased multilateralism, more capacity for partnerships and greater contact between actors dealing
with the international agenda, i.e. ‘cooperative multilateralism’; and
• More coordinated action by civil society organizations and greater influence of society in issues that
directly affect it.

Latin America has the opportunity to build a multilateral international security regime in the
region. This will be able to cope with traditional interstate dimensions of security, the emergence of
new threats and contribute to opening up spaces for settling intrastate conflicts.
Designing and defining goals is very important in a multilateral international security regime. The
key, crucial element, however, is political will. New conflicts, the presence of new actors and proof of
new risks require a new concept of security. It must be capable of providing early warning mechanisms,

12
Human security two • 2002

spaces for strategic political dialogue as well as informal dialogue such as ‘Track II’ diplomacy. Re-
examining coercive diplomacy will open up more space for democratic regions to coordinate policies.
In short, the international regime will be organized around common concepts that enable threats
to be targeted and concerted courses of action to be designed; in other words, these actions will be to
control threats in terms of defence, open up spaces for diplomatic dialogue and reduce risks to people.
This will increase levels of human security and, therefore, classical security and global security as well.

Notes

1 United Nations Development Programme, 1999, Human Development Report 1999, New York, Oxford University
Press.
2 On globalization, see Ulrich Beck, 1998, ¿Qué es la globalización?, Buenos Aires, Ed. Paidós; Clóvis Brigagão and
Gilberto Rodrigues, 1998, Globalização a olho N.U. O Mundo conectado, Sao Paulo, Editora Moderna; Robert O.
Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., 1998, ‘Power and Interdependence in the Information Age’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 77,
no. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 81–94; Francisco Rojas Aravena (ed.), 1998, Gobalización, América Latina y la diplomacia
de cumbers, FLACSO-Chile.
3 Mel Gurtov, 1999, Global Politics in the Human Interest, Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
4 In his Millennium Report, the Secretary-General of the UN seeks to recover the role of representative of the people
for the UN and talks of ‘We the peoples’—words from the United Nations Charter. See Millennium Report by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2002, ‘We the Peoples’: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century.
http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/
5 Chairman’s Summary, 1999, A Perspective on Human Security, Lysoen, Norway, 20 May.
6 Millennium Report, op. cit.
7 This increased with global terrorism, its impact and the fight to eliminate it.
8 Roberto Bergalli and Eligio Resta (eds), 1996, Soberanía: un principio que se derrumba, Buenos Aires, Ed. Paidós.
9 Ann M. Florini and P.J. Simmons, 1998, The New Security Thinking: A Review of the North American Literature, New
York, Rockefeller Foundation; Ashton B. Carter, William J. Perry and John D. Steinbruner, 1992, A New Concept of
Cooperative Security, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution; Joseph J. Romm, 1993, Defining National Security.
The Nonmilitary Aspects, New York, Council on Foreign Relations Press; Patrice M. Franco, 2000, Toward a New
Security Architecture in the Americas, Washington, DC, Center for Strategic and International Studies.
10 Michael P. Snarr and D. Neil Snarr (eds), 1998, Introducing Global Issues, Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner; Barry
Buzan et al., 1998, Security. A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner; Roberto Keohane
and Joseph S. Nye Jr., op. cit.; Mel Gurtov, op. cit.
11 Stephen D. Krasner, 1991, International Regimes, New York, Cornell University Press (6th edition); Roberto Keohane,
1993, Instituciones Internacionales y Poder Estatal, Buenos Aires, Ed. GEL.
12 Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern, 1999, Global Public Goods, New York, UNDP/Oxford University
Press.
13 J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, 1995, Negotiation Theory and Practice, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Program
on Negotiation Books, Harvard Law School; Roger Fisher et al., 1997, Coping with International Conflict, New
Jersey, Prentice Hall; Roger Fisher, E. Kopelman and A. Kupfer Schneider, 1996, Más allá de Maquiavelo. Herramientas
para afrontar conflictos, Buenos Aires, Ed. Granica (original version in English, 1994).
14 Michael Krepon et al., 1999, Global Confidence Building, New Tools for Troubled Regions, New York, St. Martin’s
Press.
15 Stanley Hoffmann, 1998, World Disorders. Troubled Peace in the Post-Cold War era, Boston, Rowman and Littlepield.
16 Millennium Report, op. cit., chapter 4, ‘Freedom from Fear’, p. 43. http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/
17 United Nations Development Programme, 1994, Human Development Report 1994, New York, Oxford University
Press. See especially chapter II, ‘New Dimensions of Human Security’.
18 Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1996, Conflict Prevention and Early Warning in the Political Practice of
International Organizations, The Hague, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael.
19 Muthiah Alagappa and Takashi Inoguchi, 1999, International Security Management and the United Nations, Tokyo,
United Nations University Press.
20 United Nations, 2000, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (The Brahimi Report), New York,
21 August, UN document A/55/305, executive summary.
21 Jorge Nef, 1999, Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability, Ottawa, IDRC (second edition.)

13
two • 2002 HUMAN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA

22 David Held, 1997, La Democracia y el orden global. Del Estado moderno al gobierno cosmopolita. Buenos Aires, Ed.
Paidós.
23 Joseph S. Tulchin and Ralph H. Espach (eds), 2001, Latin America in the New International System, Boulder,
Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publisher.

14