HUMAN SECURITY IN TRADITIONAL SECURITY

THEORIES – CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES

Duško Vejnović1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18485/isimod_strint.2023.ch15
Predrag Obrenović2

Keywords: Abstract: Since the mid-1990s, the concept of

human security, human helplessness has begun to appear in
realism, almost all theoretical discussions of the modern
neorealism, approach to security as one of the pressing
liberalism, problems. Today, after almost less than three
neoliberalism, decades, human security has become a key factor
challenges, perspectives that is considered in almost all professional and
scientific works all over the world, from the well-
known position that security is a basic human need,
a basic human value and the strongest guaranteed
safety. It has become a key factor in preserving
security, both at local level, at community level, and
at regional level, and one could say at global level,
as well. Today, there is almost no national defense
strategy that does not pay special attention to the
concept of human security.
Using scientific methods, primarily induction, then
deduction, as well as description and comparison,
we would like to point out that traditional theories
of security such as realism, neorealism, espe-
cially liberalism and neoliberalism, indicate speci-
al importance to the individual. In addition to con-
Creative Commons Non sidering the concept of human security in tra-
Commercial CCBY-NC: This ditional theories of security, this paper aims to
article is distributed under the terms of point out the challenges and perspectives of
the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-
Commercial 4.0 License (https://creative-
further theoretical consideration of the concept of
commons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which human security in modern society, which is
permits non-commercial use, reproduc- increasingly characterized by multipolarity along
tion and distribution of the work without with modern technical and technological develop-
further permission. ment, based on such an analysis.

1
Duško Vejnović, Full Professor, Faculty of Security Sciences, University of Banja Luka,
e-mail: dusko.vejnovic@fbn.unibl.org
2
Predrag Obrenović, Associate Professor, Independent University of Banja Luka,
e-mail: predragobrenovic@yahoo.com

243
 Strategic Intersections

Introduction

I n recent years, various forms of attempts by a large number of theorists of disunity

can be seen, and the most prominent ones among them are those of strategic
security studies. In their reflections, it is pointed out that the end of the Cold War did not
bring any tectonic disruption in the security concept understanding. However, the post-
Cold War security agenda has become such that the above-mentioned hypothesis is
largely in a dilemma. Namely, in addition to the state and military as the dominant
references in the traditional security concept understanding, terms and definitions such
as intrastate conflicts, problems of ethnic, racial and religious identity in multiethnic
states, migration, organized crime, the environment, epidemics of infectious diseases,
sustainable development, and the availability of food and natural resources necessary for
sustainable life of the individual could be seen in analyses dealing with security
challenges at the end of the 20th century. The emergence of new concepts in the field of
security has provoked a reaction from a group of security theorists, primarily those
advocating the neoliberal concept of international relations regulation, and thus the
concept of security (for, precisely the last decade of the 20th century was the one of the
vertiginous rise of neoliberal child-globalization). They pointed out that the traditional
approach to security that has emerged under the influence of realistic and neo-realistic
theories of international relations and security have to and should be changed, i.e., it is
necessary to redefine and adapt it to the contemporary challenges and threats. In these
new approach redefinition efforts, two directions can be identified in which the redefinition
process should proceed. Firstly, the concept of security should be broadened to include
threats from other spheres of human society such as economic, social and
environmental, in addition to traditional ones such as military and political challenges.
Secondly, the traditional ways of understanding the need to be redefined, i.e. expanded
and deepened in order to deviate from the narrow separation of the state as the only
reference object of security. Besides the state, the individual, society and region, as well
as the global order are listed equally in terms of security (what needs to be protected).
The most significant criticism of the traditional approach to security has been
made by human security theorists, who explicitly demanded radical expanding of the
security research agenda to issues such as sustainable development, social well-
being, the economy, and the environment of a human as an individual. As a reason
for this attitude, these theorists have argued that the state is no longer and can no
longer be the sole guarantor and provider of individual security, and in some cases
even the source of insecurity. Accordingly, in security studies, the reference object of
security itself should shift from the state to the individual. Considering this approach
of the proponents of the human security theory, we can state that its followers are
those of the neoliberal theory of security, i.e. the followers who only further militarize
the concept of individual security by expressing their views on human security,
thereby allowing individual regional or global security factors and international
relations, a neo-imperial approach to the interpretation of security.

244
 Strategic Intersections

The aim of this paper is to indicate that additional militarization in theoretical

interpretation and practical operation of human security is not necessary, because
everything needed for the undisturbed life of every individual human being has
already been brought almost to perfection through neoliberal postulates of security
approach.

The human security concept

As already stated in the introductory section, the concept of ”human security” is
of a more recent date and as such has multiple definitions and interpretations, which
will be discussed further somewhat later in the paper. Despite its innovation and
relevance to the post-Cold War security agenda, human security represents one of
the contemporary concepts within the existing security studies that have since
become the focus of scientific and professional debate. The very essence of the
human security concept lies in the idea according to which the individual is the one
and only object of security, not the state or nation.
Human safety – the safety of an individual is dependent manifold on the
interrelationship of a number of different factors. It is this individual that constitutes
the unit to which security analysis can be sublimated. Thus, ”the basic concept of
human security is such that the term human indicates that the focus is on the
individual, and the term security indicates the need to protect against threats”
(2006). This implies that human safety is concerned with the safety of individuals.
A person is safe as long as his or her physical integrity, dignity, and privacy are
protected from injury and endangerment. Thus, human safety is also defined as
”the state of person’s protection from danger, threat and injury to their personality,
rights and property” (Miletić, 1997). Yet, this definition may seem very narrow and
considered correct only in terms of the police role in protecting human rights and
property.
Also, the idea that people have to be protected in everyday life is not new. Some
theorists emphasize that ”man-centeredness is actually a political philosophy feature
of liberalism, which puts people and individuals at its center, and prescribes certain
conditions, such as freedom and equality, for their security”. (Carr, P.) Nevertheless,
what is new is precisely the very term ”human security”, i.e. this long political and
philosophical tradition focused on man has only been expressed under this term
since the end of the 20th century in liberal and neoliberal considerations of
international relations and security regulation.
Human security is gradually positioned at the center of special attention of the
”Western society”, which some international relations and security theorists treat as
”democratic societies”. Namely, the absence of all threats and risks that could
endanger human physical integrity, dignity, social status, vital rights and freedoms,
ensures the existence of basic prerequisites for the ability of individuals to achieve
their life goals.

245
 Strategic Intersections

In modern theoretical discussion, when human (individual) security is an issue,

one can find some of the concepts that characterize it, and they are often given as
follows: life, health, status, abundance, freedom. By analyzing these elements, we
can notice that in the absence of one of them, it is not possible to compensate for or
replace it with another one, for it is precisely in this way that they imply the whole.
In this regard, in 1993, the Human Development Report of the United Nations
Development Program (hereinafter referred to as UNDP) (UNDP, 1993, Human
Development Report) states and emphasizes that the traditional security approach
concepts have to be changed. Instead of focusing on national security, this Report
puts emphasis on human security, so that the human security concept will be
introduced into the discussion in the following year in this Report. In the
aforementioned Report, human security is defined as security in relation to chronic
threats (hunger, disease and repression), and the protection from sudden and harmful
disruptions to the flow of daily life (UNDP, 1994, Human Development Report).
Unlike modern human security concepts, where, as mentioned earlier, the term
implies the existence of several key concepts such as life, health, status,
abundance, freedom, the 1994 UNDP Report on Human Development introduces
the terms ”freedom from fear”, which includes human rights and security, and
”freedom from want”. The United Nations has linked human security not only to the
protection of the individual from violence, but also to their overall development. Thus
defined human security encompasses seven different dimensions, namely:
economic, food, health, environmental, personal, social, and political security
(Human Development Report, 1994, pp. 25–33).
Economic security implies an adequate and predictable income, predictable
employment, safety and health at work, covered social security, income satisfaction,
income disparity, and competitiveness. Food security involves physical and economic
food availability, i.e. the availability and quality of food items and the purchasing power
of people. Health security is achieved through the protection of people from diseases
and infection, the availability and quality of health care, the health status of people and
the existence of health care systems. Environmental security is achieved through the
protection from pollution, as well as unimpeded access to clean water and air and an
unpolluted terrestrial ecosystem. Personal security involves the absence of fear of
violence and abuse, the protection of people from crime and self-destructive
phenomena, etc. Social security implies family stability, quality of housing, quality of life
in the local community, security of cultural identity, effects of community code of ethics,
development and freedom of media and communication, freedom and effects of trade
union organizations. Political security includes the development and protection of
human rights, the impact of politics on the quality of life of citizens, and the impact of
formal social control bodies on people’s safety.
By analyzing the current professional and scientific debates and discussions, it
can be concluded that at least three different approaches, three different
conceptions of human security interpretations, have crystallized in them. The first
approach is based on human rights, as well as the rule of law, and it defines human

246
 Strategic Intersections

security in terms of the feasibility of a wide range of different human rights. This
approach is based on liberal postulates, i.e. the liberal assumption of basic individual
rights to ”life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, as well as the obligation of the
international community to protect and promote these rights.
It is safe to say that the second conception of human security is not much
different from the first one, i.e. the followers of this concept advocate a humanitarian
approach to human security. In advocating this approach, they describe security as
the absence of fear and that this is precisely what international intervention should
be aimed at in the future. Proponents of this approach view war as a major threat to
human security and emphasize the idea that people should be protected from
threats of violence. Also, since protection has to be provided by the international
community, this approach introduces humanitarian intervention as a model of
behavior in the ”Western democratic societies” in the human rights preservation.
As we can see, human rights and their protection are at the core of these two
concepts, whereas the third concept of understanding human security is in conflict
with the first two, i.e. the followers of this concept of human security believe that
human security has to and should be viewed more broadly, and as such it has to
have breadth in its foundation that will encompass various forms of harm to the life
and well-being of individuals. The third view is the broadest and includes sustainable
human development, the exercise, protection and promotion of economic, environ-
mental and social rights (Commission of Human Security, 2003).
Considering the concept of human security, it can be stated that currently there is
no generally accepted consensus in the professional and scientific community about
human security, and the concept has gained a large number of both followers and
opponents over time. The main opponents of human security, meanwhile, are conce-
rned with a broader definition of human security, according to which it represents not
only freedom from fear, but also freedom from want, which encompasses so many
contents (physical violence, environment, etc.) in a way that it is not clear what is
and what is not the domain of human security. In addition, the concept of human
security has been criticized for legitimizing humanitarian interventionism, which has
been abused several times by the democratic West to undermine the sovereignty of
primarily multinational states. Finally, it can be concluded that the concept of human
security is based on liberal, i.e. neoliberal theories of international relations and
security. However, in the following part of the paper, we will try to point out the
different notions of individual and human security, because both of these concepts
are at the heart of the neoliberal notion of security.

Human security in traditional security concepts

In this part of the paper, special attention will be devoted to conceptions of
human security, through four classical security theories such as realism, neorealism,
liberalism and neoliberalism. For the purpose of this paper, we will consider that

247
 Strategic Intersections

security theorists, who base their views on security issues on the postulates of
realism and neorealism, can be viewed, in a broader sense, as sharing the same
considerations when it comes to the safety of the individual. If it is known that for
realists and neo-realists the nation-state is the key and only factor in both
international relations and security, then the relationship and correlation between the
concepts of national security and human security will be briefly discussed.
Analyzing the professional and scientific approaches to understanding the concept of
national security, it can be seen that this concept implies a synthesis of citizens’ security
(all members of society regardless of their ethnicity, religion, race and ideology) and state
security, as well as their participation in the international and global security spheres.
The understandings of the security theories followers based on the postulates of
realism and neorealism lead us to the conclusion that reference values and interests
are protected from a wide range of threats to security of a human, natural and
technical-technological nature, and not only from armed aggression or subversive
activities of other states. A significant sphere of protective function is the prevention
of emergencies, risks and threats, i.e. we can point out that followers of the theory of
realism and neorealism advocate a defense approach to solving problems of human
security within the framework of national security. The protection of national security
involves subjects of all levels of security, such as individuals - people, society, state
and the international community. According to the concepts of realists and neo-
realists, states have and always will be the only ones that possess all the capacities
(human, material, technical and organizational) to protect all levels of security, all its
residents, as well as themselves from a large number of challenges, risks and
threats. An essential characteristic of national security concept is its openness,
according to which certain new and old values can simultaneously be included or
excluded depending on circumstances, time and places change.
Traditional notions of national security based on realism and neorealism postulates in
professional and scientific works have been presented as survival in the broadest sense,
state and national survival, physical self-sustainability, territorial integrity, political
independence, quality of life, national identity, and national interests. On the basis of the
aforementioned, the conclusion can be drawn that national security implies the state of
unimpeded access, exercise and optimal protection of national (state and social) values
and interests (primarily peace, freedom, rights and security of people and social groups;
quality of life; national unity, dignity, pride and identity; healthy environment; energy stability,
economic and social prosperity; information resources; constitutional and legal order, the
rule of law; territorial integrity; political independence; sovereignty) that are achieved,
maintained and promoted on the basis of citizens’ security, national security system and
mechanisms, as well as the absence of (individual, group and collective) fear of their threat
and a collective sense of tranquility and control over the development of future phenomena
and events of importance for the life of society and the state (Mijalković, 2009).
National security includes people’s security (citizens, foreigners and stateless
persons in a country’s territory) and the state security, and also participation in the
field of international and global security.

248
 Strategic Intersections

However, changes that have occurred in the field of the conceptions of security have
necessitated that the traditional division of the national security component into internal and
external security be modified and adapted to new challenges and threats. Security, which
encompasses an already overcome division, has integrated components both internally
and externally, and the integral national security consists of several components, including
peace and freedom (security from military challenges and threats), national sovereignty,
territory and political system security, political independence, legal order, energy,
information, social, environmental security and security of national identity, honor and
dignity. These components permeate into multiple sectors and these are as follows:
– individual security sector;
– some social groups and minorities in the security sector (ethnic, religious, racial,
gender, sexual, cultural, peer, etc.);
– the whole society security sector, including the one of its members living in
other states;
– the state security sector, and
– the sector of the state participation in international and global security.
Therefore, nowadays national security does not only imply state functioning based on
force, but also on political, economic, military, social, environmental and information
stability, international reputation and integrity of the state (Simić, D., 2002). Contemporary
national security is a synthesis of citizens (individuals) and state security, as well as their
participation in international security. The protection of vital values is achieved through the
implementation of the security function, i.e. state and non-state security sector activities,
and also with the help of international cooperation in the field of security.
Evidently, new forms of security enabling the nation-state to respond to all or
almost all challenges and threats jeopardizing the nation-state’s security and thus
each of its inhabitant regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or any other affiliation,
have developed under the influence of realism and neorealism theory.
Just as for the purpose of this paper, the followers of realism and neorealism have
been considered to share the same views on the security component, so liberalism
and neoliberalism followers will be considered to have the same views on the security
component, i.e. those that would like to remove the nation-state from the separation
process in every security component. However, unlike the previous part of the paper,
where the relationship of human security from the aspect of national security, in the
case of liberal and neoliberal theories has been explained, the primary focus has to be
on the relationship between the concepts of individual and human security, i.e. the
relationship between human rights and security have to be considered.
When we begin to analyze both national and foreign professional and scientific
literature, it can be noticed that a number of theorists identify individual safety with
the concept of human safety. There is also a larger group of authors defining
individual safety as an integral part, and for some it might be said to be the core of
human safety. Sabina Elkir, for example, defines this core as ”the minimum, basic or
essential set of achievements related to survival, livelihood and dignity” (Elkir, 2012).

249
 Strategic Intersections

As stated in some interpretations, human safety is reduced to individual - as the

absence of a threat to the physical survival of the individual. However, most authors,
as well as the aforementioned and cited UNDP Report itself, interpret human safety
as a broader concept that implies the focus on people and their physical and mental
integrity, as well as their interaction with the social environment, for it is precisely
such interactions that can generate negative consequences on the value of the
person. Thus, Barry Buzan argues that most threats to individuals originate from the
view that people ”have merged with their social environment generating inevitable
social, economic and political pressures” (Buzan, 1991).
As a means to achieve the desired state of human security, in addition to
protecting the individual from violence, it is necessary to create all other social
conditions for achieving comprehensive security, which includes emancipation as its
ultimate outcome. According to some foreign authors, it is precisely this emancipation
in people that creates freedom from restrictions that prevent them from doing freely
what they would otherwise do, and not power or order based on coercion. It creates
security that is both theoretical and practical.
The contribution of individual safety is also to shift the perception of the primary
object of safety from the state to the individual. In order for the state, as a means of
achieving security, to accomplish its goal, which is people’s security, firstly it has to
be able to ensure the security of individual integrity, i.e. the physical survival of a
person. Nowadays, it is common to imply personal security, as the protection of the
physical integrity of an individual from violence, because it is guaranteed by the state
and a number of other regional and international entities, so this concept extends to
the individuals’ protection and other forms of threat.
As is shown, personal security concept, contained in the human security concept, has
the status of a base around which all other dimensions of human security are
concentrated, which, depending on the context, can be economy, ecology, health, food,
education, etc. This list of human security dimensions is not definitive. Quite the contrary,
it is as fluid as the concept of human security itself, and is conditioned by the time context,
so that it is possible to distinguish between pre-Cold War, Cold War and post-Cold War
era in understanding human security. Personal safety and individual security, which are
focused on the individual in a social and biological sense, are the basic premise of a new
post-Cold War conception of security contained in the human safety concept.
There is a close, or one might say inseparable, link between human security and
human rights. Nevertheless, theories still offer different answers to these questions
and carry out detailed analyses of the relationship between human security and human
rights, although both concepts focus on the human being, i.e. the individual. Thus, in
order to make any distinction between these two concepts, some authors have
persistently been looking for differences in contrast to obviously similar features,
asking such questions, as: Is human security a human right in itself? Are human rights
the core or normative basis for the concept of human security? What is the relationship
between human security and human rights in terms of the potential for ”mutual support
and enrichment”? Human security is definitely a holistic concept, as could be said for

250
 Strategic Intersections

human rights, which is distinguished, above all, by universality. Human rights have
always implied the individual’s safety. ”Security” is a human right in itself, pursuant to
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ’Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and personal security’, refers explicitly to security within the framework of
human rights. Regarding the relationship between human rights and human security,
numerous questions have been raised, but at least two seem to have been asked at
the level of theoretical and empirical debate: the first one, security is a human right in
itself and the second one, the concept of human security relies heavily on the
theoretical discourse, practice and framework of the human rights concept.
Notwithstanding, this connection is even more pronounced in the daily lives and peer
systems of individuals, who, especially in conditions where their personal safety is
directly threatened, will neglect every other human right and seek to eliminate
circumstances and risks that threaten the basic right to life.
Currently, it can be noted that states that adhere to the values of the ”Western
model of democracy” primarily based on neoliberal postulates of advancing
international relations and security, have different approaches to the debate on
human security. Thus, we can say that Canada places more emphasis on ”freedom
from fear”, while other countries rely more on ”freedom from want” as is the case in
Japan. In any case, freedom from want is based on a modern understanding in the
context of economic, social and cultural rights that every human being should enjoy,
and is indisputably a part of human security.
It could be noted that human security as a derived and new social and security
concept, still does not have complete social support, and as such does not have the
institutional and theoretical capacity that the concept of human rights has recognized
in the international law and practical implementation it has. For this reason, human
security relies on both this infrastructure and a part of the academic and professional
argumentation developed in the human rights doctrine.
In view of the breadth of the subject concepts by the followers of the aforementioned
human security postulates, the opinion that human security is a broader concept than
human rights, which, in addition to fundamental rights includes the basic abilities and
absolute needs of an individual, has begun to prevail in the professional and scientific
community. Human security, among other things, also refers to challenges and threats
such as natural disasters, or it can be said that human security includes all emerging
challenges, risks and threats that will arise from both state and non-state actors.
Hence, when it comes to human rights in the concept of human security,
currently an acceptable answer could be given that human rights are a part of
human security, that is, they are the very core or essence of human security.

Human security – challenges and perspectives

As it has been shown, modern theorists, who base their views primarily on the
neoliberal postulates of security theory, have placed the concept of human security very
broadly, thus future challenges, risks and threats to human security can be viewed

251
 Strategic Intersections

through the prism of society and life quality. It can be stated that the society and life quality
are closely interrelated and have both positive and negative interactions. The term ”quality
of life” describes the factors that affect the living conditions of a society or individual, and
more generally, it implies the degree of well-being of an individual or group of people. The
life quality concept refers to the overall well-being within a society, with the tendency to
provide every member of society with equal conditions to achieve their goals, of course,
as long as they are not illegal or harmful to the member or the environment.
The concept of human security has a very ”long list of threats”, as well as insuffi-
ciently defined values: human rights, quality of life, freedom from exclusion/fear or value
understood as the ability of an individual to fully and freely realize their potential in the
environment in which they live. Therefore, while there is no consensus about what
human security is, it is worrying that it seems even more complicated to determine what
it is not. Thus, while there is no consensus about what constitutes human security, even
more disturbing is the difficulty in determining what it is not, when its concept is so
broadly framed as to have unforeseeable implications for global security. There is a
danger that the mere interpretation of human security in the future will be one of the risks
to global security itself. To avoid this possibility, the aforementioned 1994 UNDP Report
lists threats to human security, but allows a large number of future challenges, risks and
threats to be classified into one of the following seven groups:
– Economic security – faced with threats of unemployment, job insecurity, poor
working conditions, income inequality, inflation, poor social security and homelessness.
– Food security – is achieved by addressing problems related to physical and economic
access to food. People starve not because of the lack of food, but because they cannot
afford it.
– Health security – focuses on threats to human life and health caused by infectious
and parasitic diseases, HIV and other viruses, diseases caused by polluted air or water,
and inadequate access to health services.
– Environmental security focuses on the degradation of local and global ecosystems,
water scarcity, floods and other natural disasters, irrational deforestation, as well as water,
air and soil pollution.
– Personal security focuses on suppressing threats that can take several forms:
torture by the state (physical violence), threats from other states (war), threats from
another group of people (ethnic tensions), threats from individuals or criminal groups
(crime or street violence), threats directed at women (rape and domestic violence),
threats directed at children (abuse) and threats directed at oneself (suicide, drug use).
– Community security focuses on ethnic tensions and violent conflict.
– Political security is one of the most important aspects of human security and involves
living in a society that respects basic human rights and does not carry out state repression.
Human security advocates feel that subjective insecurity among people today
originates more from various everyday challenges than from fears of various military,
subversive, or nuclear threats. Therefore, according to them, the greatest threat is no
longer war, which seems to be at least a utopian theory, from standpoint today in
international relations and security. Job and income security, health and environmental

252
 Strategic Intersections

security, protection from violence - these are the primary concerns nowadays in terms of
human security around the globe. It can also be noted that the catalogue of risks,
challenges and threats is huge, one might say quite long. Human rights, as a set of
inalienable rights and freedoms of individuals, are under particular threat in many world
regions today. Global society has faced numerous contradictions in the process of
reshaping the very concept of global international order and security.
Today the world is in a much more complex state of global security in which the
risks, challenges and threats to security compared to the last decade of the 20th
century, when the neoliberal worldview was at its peak, are much more complex
compared to the aforementioned period.
In addition to the multi-vector complication of challenges, risks and threats to
global survival, an even greater challenge for us is the growing alienation of people
from each other. Simply put, it is very difficult to explain that a human being, who is
by nature a social being and depends on interactions with other human beings, in an
era of undoubted technical-technological development of civilization, becomes
increasingly alienated from others. As a matter of fact, when human beings are
alienated from each other, they are actually alienated from themselves, from the very
essence of their existence. The ultimate and most disastrous result of this seemingly
sustainable state of our global society may be the destruction of an individual as an
intelligent and human being, thereby nullifying the value of human life.
When human security prospect in the coming period is in question, we should first bear
in mind that the human security concept presented in the UNDP Report from 1994
represents one of the most humane ideas of the world politics. Analyzing publicly published
views and reflections of a large number of security theorists, it can be concluded that in the
profession and science there is a great amount of restraint, not to mention skepticism
regarding the scientific scope of such a broad concept, as well as the possibility of its
contribution to security studies. The representatives of the critical school, whose teaching is
the closest to the ideas underlying the human safety concept, often ”hinge” from it, most
notably due to the analytical unprofitability that results from the imprecise determination of
what is implied by human safety, i.e. what should be the subject of analysis.
Human security has originally emerged as a practical concept aimed at identifying and
solving problems to which a human being, as the lowest unit of security analysis, is
exposed. Contemporary literature clearly recognizes and distinguishes between the
scientific treatment of human safety (analytical applicability of the concept) and its treatment
as practical policy (normative applicability). From this aspect, a highly significant division is
made between the stated approach to human security put forward by Mary Kaldor and
others, distinguishing between two aspects of the human security doctrine, which are as
follows: ”.... lexis – what is said and written about it and praxis – what it means in terms of
everyday practical activity” (Kaldor, Martin, Selchow, 2007). The aforementioned authors
subject the human security concept to particular tensions, which is natural, because placing
the individual at the center and focus of security calculations has caused major changes in
modern security studies and at the same time has led to numerous criticisms and
contradictions. This state of affairs can best be perceived in attempts to find and establish a
point of balance, between the authority of the state and the freedom of the individual, and

253
 Strategic Intersections

one might say, between the individual and collective rights. Thus, the human security
concept, in modern theory, especially in practice, reflects a multitude of different ideas and
conceptual notions, which are frequently difficult to harmonize and reconcile.
By analyzing the concept of human security itself, it can be noted that it is extremely
complex and multidimensional. It is this multidimensionality that is reflected in the following:
– comprehensiveness- very broadly-based, with no borders preventive;
– multi-sectoral;
– contextualized;
– participatory;
– gender-aware.
When presenting and clarifying the human security concept, it is important to bear in
mind the principles upon which it is based. In order for this clarification to be done at a very
high level, it is necessary to put the protection and empowerment principles in focus,
especially the protection principle, because people and communities are facing a fatal
threat of events far beyond their control: financial crisis, violent conflict, AIDS, terrorist
attacks, water scarcity, poverty, environmental destruction, etc., and many of them can
appear suddenly and then they are even more dangerous. In highly turbulent world today, it
is vital to be aware of risks, challenges, and threats before they arise. Indeed, when a more
detailed analysis is conducted, it can be confirmed that human security, as well, has to and
should adopt a defensive approach in response to emerging multi-vector challenges, risks
and security, in order for it to have a complete understanding.
The power and novelty of the human security concept is perhaps best reflected through
synergy with related concepts that are widely accepted. For example, human security and
human resource development are often described as two closely related concepts, which
also applies to the concepts of ”freedom from fear” and ”freedom from want”. Broadly
speaking, the human security concept advocates the possibility for all to enjoy the fruits of
human development in a safe environment. Therefore, human development represents an
important mechanism to effectively strengthen and implement the concept of human
security. These initiatives are complementary. One without the other may not make the
concept of human security impossible, but it makes it meaningless.
The perspective of the human security concept based on the main principle of the
”centrality” of the individual, despite current debates and criticisms, is entirely
certain. It is the concept that will definitely remain in the international dialogue,
experiencing many successes and failures, which is a natural and logical process.

Conclusion
The individual security concept emergence after the end of the Cold War on the
premises of liberal, i.e. neoliberal security theory was the expected reaction of different
groups of theorists, when conducting various academic research, to include in the
framework of security studies other and different levels of analysis that are below the
nation-state, but with which it has the least possible interaction. By virtue of such efforts,
the end of the 20th century marked the human security concept, or, as many theorists

254
 Strategic Intersections

put it, its worst-case scenario, the use of human security to justify the so-called
”humanitarian intervention” that the ”democratic West” carried out across much of the
globe in pursuit of their proclaimed goals. Human security, on the part of its followers,
was used to change the previous approach to security, which had been based on
national state security. However, in analyzing the conceptions of human security through
the postulates of classical security theories, primarily realism and neorealism and against
them liberalism and neoliberalism, it is necessary to highlight the human dimension of
human security, precisely the one mentioned in the 1994 UNDP Report.
With all the positive effects of human security, which are primarily based on its human
dimension, human security can be embraced through theoretical considerations of security
that are based on the concepts of traditional security theories, as contemporary challenges,
threats and risks require a defensive approach to security, since modern multi-vector risks,
challenges and threats cannot be eliminated if they are not recognized in time.
As long as we live in the world in which the tendency of some people to impose their
views on others, by various forms and methods of coercion, will not and cannot be fully
accepted, human insecurity will not and cannot be fully accepted. That is, as Albert Einstein
said long ago, when the pursuit of creating and maintaining decent living conditions for all
people is recognized and accepted as the common obligation of all people and all countries
– only then we will be able to speak of the human race as civilized with some degree of
justification. Meanwhile, we will be left with anarchy in security, where every individual,
every state will seek ways and means to overcome security challenges, risks and threats.

Bibliography
1. Buzan, B. (1991). People, States & Fear, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.
2. Oberlajtner, G. (2006). Ljudska bezbednost i ljudska prava. in: Dulić, D. (pr.)
Ljudska bezbednost, Collection of Texts 2, Belgrade, Open Society Fund.
3. Mijalković, S. (2009). Nacionalna bezbednost – od Vestfalskog koncepta do
posthladnoratovskog. Military work 2, 55-70.
4. Mary Kaldor; Mary Martin; Sabine Selchow. (2007). Human security: a new strategic
narrative for Europe, International Affairs, Volume 83, Issue 2, SAGE Publications Ltd,
Thousand Oaks, California.
5. Kerr, P. (2010). Ljudska sigurnost at: Collins, A. (ur.) Contemporary Security
Studies, Zagreb, Faculty of Political Science of the University of Zagreb – Center for
International and Security Studies, Political Culture, p. 115.
6. Elkir, S. (2006). Konceptualni okvir za ljudsku bezbednost. published in: Human
security, textbook 1, Fund for open society, Belgrade.
7. Simić. D. (2002). Nauka o bezbjednosti. Official Gazette of the FRY, Belgrade.
8. The Commission of Human Security. (2003). Human Security Now, New York.

255