The concept of human security is a controversial approach by a certain group of post-Cold War 1.0 academicians (after 1990) for the purpose of redefining and at the same time making broader the meaning of security in global politics and the studies of international relations. Keep in mind that up to the end of the Cold War 1.0, security as both political phenomena and academic studies were connected only with the protection of the independence (sovereignty) and territorial integrity of states (national polities) from military threat (war, aggression) by external factors (players) but also by other states. Actually, that was the crucial idea regarding the concept of national (state) security, which dominated security analysis and policy-making decisions after 1945 up to the 1990s.

However, from the mid-1990s, security studies, responding to global geopolitical changes after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, started to research security issues in broader, not only state-military categories, regardless of the fact that state and state security still remained the focal object of security studies as the entity to be protected. Nevertheless, the new concept of human security challenged the state-centric paradigm of security by stressing the individual as the focal referent and object of security.

In other words, studies of human security deal with security for the people (individual or group) rather than of governmental administration or / and national state (borders). Advocates of the concept of human security claim that it is a significant contribution toward resolving the problems of human safety and survival posed by poverty, environmental changes, disease, abuse of human rights, and local / regional armed conflicts (civil war). Nonetheless, today, it is quite obvious that at the time of turbo globalization, security studies must take into account a broader range of concerns and challenges than simply defending the state from external armed action.

The idea of human security was born in contrast to realists who saw the issue of security only linked to the state to secure it from other states by liberal thinkers who argued that famine, disease, crime, or natural catastrophes cost in many cases much more human lives compared to wars and military actions in general. In short, the liberal idea of human security stresses the welfare of individuals rather than the welfare of states.

The concept of human security deals with seven areas of research:

1)     Political security: to ensure that humans living in a society that honours individual freedom and groups from the policy of governmental authorities to control information and free speech.

2)    Personal security: to protect individuals or groups from physical violence, either by state authorities or external factors, from violent individuals and sub-state factors, from domestic abuse, and from predatory adults.

3)    Community security: to protect a group of individuals (usually the minority group) from the loss of their traditional culture, habits, relationships, and values, as well as from sectarian (religious) and ethnic violence.

4)    Economic security: to assure fundamental income for individuals from their paid work, or, in the last resort, from some charity organization.

5)    Environmental security: to protect individuals from both short / long-term destruction of nature usually as the result of human-made threats in nature and poisoning of the natural environment.

6)    Food security: to ensure that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food in order to survive.

7)     Health security: to guarantee minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles.

Human security holds as a focal point that many people (particularly in the Third World) are experiencing global vulnerabilities in relation to poverty, unemployment, and environmental degradation. However, both the concept and idea of human security do not oppose traditional national security concerns – the government’s job is crucial to defend ordinary citizens from external attacks by a foreign power. Instead, advocates of human security claim that the appropriate focus of security is the human individual rather than the state. This means that the concept of human security is taking a people-centered view which is necessary for wider national, regional, and global stability. The concept draws on a number of disciplinary areas as for instance, development studies, international relations, strategic studies, or human rights. 

Proponents of human security studies are dissatisfied with the official notion of development, which viewed it as a function of economic development (local, regional, or global). They propose instead a concept of human development. Its main focus is on creating human capabilities to confront and overcome illiteracy, poverty, diseases, different kinds of discrimination, restrictions on political freedom, as well the threat of violent (armed / military) conflict.

Studies of human security are closely related to research on the negative impact of defense spending on development (“guns vs butter”) as the arms race and development are in a competitive (opposite) relationship (the case of the U.S. military spending and the development of U.S. society is an example). Proponents of human security require more resources for development and less for arms (a dilemma of “disarmament and development”).

In the post-Cold War 1.0 era, human security prospects have grown in salience. One reason was the rising incidence of civil armed conflicts in different regions (the Balkans, Caucasus, Rwanda…) which took a large number of lives (around one million in Rwanda in 1994), displacement of local population within national borders (internally displaced people) or across national borders (refugees /war emigrants).

Traditional studies on national security did not take into consideration the cases of conflicts and armed struggles over ethnic, cultural, or confessional identities around the world after 1990. However, the idea of the spread of democratization, protection of human rights, and humanitarian interventions (R2P), usually misused by Western policymakers, influenced the development of academic studies on human security. This involves the principle that the international community (the UN, but not individual states) is justified in military interventions against states accused of gross violation of human rights.

This led to the realization that the concept of national security is no longer sufficiently accounts for different types of danger threatening the security of local societies, national states, or the international community. The notion of human security endangered by turbo globalization after 1990 (widespread poverty, high levels of unemployment, or social dislocations caused by economic-financial crises) stressed the weakness of individuals facing the effect of economic globalization.    

Academic debates regarding human security is a relatively new branch of security studies:

1) Both supporters and skeptics of the concept disagree over the question of whether human security is a new or necessary notion followed by the problem what are the costs and benefits of adopting it as an intellectual tool or a policy framework.

2) There have been debates regarding the scope of the concept, primarily among its supporters.

Critics of the human security concept claim it is too broad to be analytically meaningful or useful as an instrument of policy-making. Another criticism is that such a concept might cause more harm compared to benefits. They see the definition of human security as too moralistic compared to the traditional concept of security, and hence as unrealistic. The most powerful criticism of the human security concept is that it does not take into consideration the role of the state as a source of security. They claim that the state is a necessary framework for any form of individual security for what other agency can act for the benefit of the individual(s).

Advocates of human security do not discount the practical importance of the state as a guarantor of human security; human security complements state security. Thus, weak states are incapable of protecting the safety and dignity of their people. In some states, human security for their citizens is threatened by the policy of their own governmental authorities. Thus, while state authorities are crucial for providing human security, they are at times the focal source of threat to their own citizens. Hence, the state cannot be regarded as the only source of human security and in some cases even not as the most important one.

For the proponents of human security, poverty is probably the most dangerous threat to the security of individuals. Although the total global economic pie is growing, its distribution is uneven and deepens the rich/poor gap between the global North and global South. In many of the developing countries, rapidly growing populations erase economic growth. The poorest 40% of the global population account only for 5% of global income, while the wealthiest 20% receive ¾ of the world’s income. Since 2007, the income gap between the top and bottom 10% has increased in many countries.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) give information and early warning about conflict, and offer a channel for relief operations. The NGOs are very often the first in areas of conflict or natural disaster, and support local government or UN-sponsored peacebuilding and rehabilitation missions. They also support sustainable development. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has unique authority based on international humanitarian law of the Geneva Conventions to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence, including war-wounded individuals, prisoners, refugees, displaced persons, etc. Another crucial NGO involved in the protection of human security and human rights is Amnesty International.