Human Security after 15 Years: Some Introductory Remarks and Critical Reflections

Abstract

After 25 years, the global vision for human security as a concept and a policy commitment remains unfulfilled in most parts of the world. In fact, more and more evidence points to the growing reality that the idea of securing people has once again succumbed to the traditional concepts of state security and regime security, as it did after World War II. Part of the problem can be found in some major policy instruments adopted by proponents of human security. Military intervention for human protection, economic sanctions and judicial punishment or threats thereof, which have been regarded as policy instruments to protect people or promote human security, have proved to be either insufficient or ineffective, and at worst counter-productive.

Why 'Smart' Sanctions Still Cause Human Insecurity

“…While democratic states may be willing to comply with international law and inclined toward the idea of human interest, not enough evidence suggests they are prepared to enforce sanctions on the grounds of human security. In the West, two champions of human security, Canada and Norway, subsequently abandoned or did not refer to the concept after they had adopted it at the turn of the 21st century (Peou 2019). Only two democracies in East Asia (Japan and South Korea) adopted human security in their respective foreign policy agendas (Peou and Kuhnle 2014;Peou 2014Peou , 2009.…”

“…The purpose of this article is not to describe and explain in detail the impact of economic sanctions imposed on Myanmar and North Korea but to determine if there is a negative relationship between this policy tool and human insecurity (Peou 2019). Evidence appears to suggest that smart sanctions are not 'intelligent' enough to change political leaders' violent behavior or to protect innocent civilians from direct or physical and indirect or structural violence.…”