日本学術振興会　人文・社会科学振興プロジェクト研究事業
領域II - (1)　平和構築に向けた知の展開

Japanese / English　　　　　　サイトマップ

Capter 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | fn.

　　Thesis: Rwanda 1994 gave the option of doing nothing a bad name. The (very) soft military approach in Bosnia (Srebrenica) 1995 gave UN-led peace-keeping a bad name. The hard military US-led NATO war 1999 against Serbia to protect the Kosovars gave humanitarian assistance a bad name. But the succesful hard nonviolent approach against Milosevic fall 1999(20) --seen as illegitimate regardless of the truth about those elections--did not give nonviolence a good name, the approach being too extra-paradigmatic in a US-led world seeking military legitimacy.(21)

　　In short, time for a new concept. The UN Commission On Human Security (CHS), launched in June 2001, was co-chaired by the former UN High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata and Amartya Sen, holder of the Nobel prize in economic science.(22) The final report was presented to the UN Secretary-General on May 1 2003.(23) Some highlights from the important Report:

- The international community urgently needs a new paradigm of security--(the state) often fails to fulfill its security obligations-and at times has even become a source of threats to its own people--attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people--to human security.

- (the Report is) a response to the threats of development reversed, to the threats of violence inflicted--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;

- Human security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development.

- The CHS definition: to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.

- Human security complements "state security" in four respects:
o Its concern is individual and community rather than the state
o Menaces include /more than/ threats to state security
o The range of actors is expanded beyond the state alone
o Achieving human security includes--empowering people

- Human security helps identify gaps in the infrastructure of protection as well as ways to strengthen or improve it.

　　The operational part translates such ideas into ten points:

- Protecting people in violent conflict
- Protecting people from the proliferation of arms
- Supporting the human security of people on the move
- Establishing human security transition funds for post-conflict
- Encouraging fair trade and markets to benefit the poor
- Providing minimum living standards everywhere
- According high priority to universal access to basic health care
- Develop an efficient and equitable global system for patent rights
- Empowering all people with universal basic education
- Clarifying the need for a global human identity while respecting the freedom of individuals to have diverse identities and affiliations

　　Very much of what has been mentioned is in the basic human needs tradition, like the four needs-classes presented in section [1] above:

　　There is a focus on survival in terms of protection and security.

　　There is a focus on wellness in terms of basic health care, basic education and minimum living standards. Trade, market and patent rights are qualified by "fair", to "benefit the poor" and "equitable".

　　There is a focus on diverse identity, including global identity.

　　Freedom is missing from these points, but is all over the report, very much based on one of the leading intellectuals of our times, co-chair Amartya Sen, and his seminal book Development as Freedom.(24)

　　And most importantly: "the range of actors is expanded beyond the state alone", above all bringing in empowered individuals all over.

　　No doubt "human security" is a formula giving "human" to the basic needs approach, developing that approach further. Does it also give "security" to the state, as indicated in [1] above? And how?

　　The report legitimizes the word "security" by giving it the connotation "human". What then happens is beyond the pages of the report. We would expect the state system with its monopoly on the violent means of security to use this legitimation, justifying intervention inside other states in the name of "human security". And we would also expect some of them to use "security" in the broad sense as a cover for other goals, in the national interest tradition. 　NEXT >>

NEXT >>

Capter 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | fn.

▲ページトップに戻る ▲