论文部分内容阅读
Ⅰ.Introduction
The need for governments and international organisations to gain a better understanding of ″security″ is ever more urgent. For example in the conflict in Libya in early 2011, many security dilemmas were visible： the protection of Libyan civilians, the security of the regime, whether and how the UN or NATO should intervene, whether Europe would be threatened with a massive refugee flow, how to protect or evacuate foreign citizens (including Chinese), how to secure food and medical supplies in the midst of armed conflict. Such events may be termed ″complex emergencies″ which often raise legal, military and humanitarian issues simultaneously. International law and practice do not provide clear guidelines on such situations, and responses can be random, contingent on a variety of factors. Traditional concepts of security, for example protection of national borders, are certainly still relevant and legally enforceable, but more sophisticated concepts are needed to respond to security dilemmas in today’s globalised world.
Human security as a concept was first developed within the UN system in the 1990s, and set out, for example, in Human Security Now [1］. The first section of this paper tracks the development of Human Security discourse, and also examines the broadening of the ″security″ concept in recent years. The second section reports on institutions with a specific interest in Human Security, for example within the UN system and in universities. The third section acknowledges some critiques of the Human Security paradigm. The last section reports on new directions that may enrich the Human Security agenda.
Various synopses and analyses of Human Security have been published, including an accessible account from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) [2］. A report for the UN Centre for Regional Development Perspectives from the early years of the millennium provides another good overview of Human Security in that period [3］.
Ⅱ.Human Security Contexts
Human Security encompasses at least the following： (1) a set of ideas and ideals concerning improvements to development and protection for communities living in complex poverty；(2) a transdisciplinary analysis of multiple factors in vulnerabilities and interventions；(3) a paradigm for UN and other development agencies；(4) a context within which to situate interventions, including those legitimated by ″Responsibility to Protect″ arguments； (5) a named discipline in academic institutions；(6) a terminology adopted by several nations, e.g.， Canada, to describe an orientation for international work in the past decade；(7) an opportunity for creative inputs to development/protection agendas.
Some key features of Human Security are that it should be peoplecentred and gendersensitive; multidimensional; interconnected; universal; and contextualised. It offers an analysis of the vulnerabilities of a specific population; and also recommendations for responses to these vulnerabilities, e.g. by intervention and development. Human Security Now lists issues requiring concerted actions which are relevant to most vulnerable communities, for example protection from violent conflict. The report overall notes that povertyrelated disease constitutes probably the most massive single threat to vulnerable populations [1］.
For some decades after the Second World War, ″security″ had been mostly conceptualized as the security of nationstates in the context of possible military conflicts, for example between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Global events and trends, particularly since the late 1980s, have to a great extent transformed the security agenda. One impetus was the changing nature of violent conflict, with more evident militarized intrastate, ethnic and religious conflicts. In the past two decades it became increasingly apparent that communities are also threatened by environmental destruction—induced both by climate change and direct human impacts—forced migration, epidemics including HIV/AIDS, and other issues.
In the 1990s, institutions and researchers began to propose alternatives to the conventional security agenda. In 1994, the UNDP extended policy debate using the then new concept of Human Security. The report set out a broad definition of Human Security, including seven core values： economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security (freedom from fear of violence, crime, and drugs), community security (freedom to participate in family life and cultural activities) and political security (freedom to exercise one’s basic human rights) [4］.
As Johan Galtung has pointed out, security in this sense represented a continuity from the ″basic human needs″ paradigm that was influential in developmental agendas from the 1970s [5］. Many of the humanitarian concerns were encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 25：
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Human security is thus a potentially useful collocation of two terms： one of them, security, carrying implications of realpolitik and lawenforcement; the other, human, with its connotations of the humanitarian tradition and a personcentred priority.
Several states began to use the rubric of ″Human Security″ to introduce new emphases in foreign policy and international work. In summary, they tended to argue： (1) the main referent point for security should be the individual, or the individual in a group or community; and particularly vulnerable people. Military security of nationstates remains important but is not always the overriding priority in every situation; (2) individuals or groups are subject to a variety of threats, of which military threats from outside the state are only one and often not the most significant; (3) the international community has a responsibility in some circumstances to protect vulnerable individuals and communities; (4) that the protection of vulnerable individuals and communities should sometimes take precedence over territorial issues, so in some cases there is possible tension between the security of the individual and that of the nation, the state or the regime.
One influential official document is ″Responsibility to Protect″, produced by an agency working for the Canadian government (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001), which tried to evaluate the criteria by which crossborder interventions should be not only permitted, but morally obligatory. The discussion was informed by the perceived failure of the international community to intervene in genocides or neargenocides in Rwanda and Bosnia; and more lately in Darfur. UN General Assembly Member States endorsed ″Responsibility to Protect″ in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit. This Human Security initiative thus had important practical outcomesWebsite： http：//www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/aboutrtop..
Security agendas have thus extended beyond concerns with national borders to include ″nontraditional″ security threats such as terrorism, organized crime, poverty, epidemics, drugs, hunger, natural disasters, illegal migration and refugees, environmental degradation, resource scarcity, poor governance. This extension is illustrated in the table below：
Table 1 Related Concepts to Human Security Agendas
Denomination
References object (security of whom?)Value at risk (security of what?)Sources of threat (security from whom and for what?)
Global SecurityWorld order, international communityGlobal stability and cooperationMilitarized regimesPowerbloc confrontation
National Security (political, military)The StateSovereignty, territorial integrityOther states, terrorism, substate actors
Societal SecurityNations, societal groupsNational unity, identityCultureclash, hostmigrant tensions, economic collapse
Human SecurityIndividuals, communitiesSurvival, quality of lifeArmed attacks (paramilitaries/ state agencies),extreme complex poverty
Continued from Table 1
Denomination
References object (security of whom?)Value at risk (security of what?)Sources of threat (security from whom and for what?)
Environmental SecurityEcosystem, humankindSustainabilityNature, humankind
Security of Marginalized GroupsGender relations, indigenous, minorities children, eldersEquity, identity, solidarity, social representationsPatriarchy, totalitarian institutions (government, religions, elites, culture, intolerance)
Ⅲ.Human Security Institutions
A number of institutions include ″Human Security″ in their titles, while other agencies deal with issues closely related to Human Security without making explicit use of the term. The major institutions can be conveniently considered in three broad categories.
1.The United Nations and Affiliates
At the UN Millenium Summit in 2000, SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan called upon the world community to advance the twin goals of ″freedom from want″ and ″freedom from fear″. As a contribution to this effort, an independent Commission on Human Security (CHS) was established, led by Amartya Sen and Sadako Ogata. In May 2003, after two years of deliberation, the Commission submitted its final report, entitled Human Security Now, to the SecretaryGeneral. This report, available on the internet, is perhaps the best readable summary of UN aspirations [1］. Human Security, and the associated Responsibility to Protect, is used widely in UN agencies.
2.National/intergovernmental Organizations
Several governments have been proactive in the Human Security agenda. For example the Canadian government stated in 2007：
As Canadians, we are committed to building a world where people can live in freedom from fear of threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking and the illicit trade of small arms. This new generation of threats shows no respect for national borders and inevitably becomes the source of our own insecurity. Human Security is a peoplecentred approach to foreign policy which recognizes that lasting stability cannot be achieved until people are protected from violent threats to their rights, safety or lives.
3.Academic Institutions and Research Centres
Many academic institutions undertake research and teaching in security issues, peace studies, disaster management, epidemiology, environmental sciences and other concerns of the Human Security agenda. One prospective benefit of academic research into the Human Security agenda could be to promote understanding of linkages and synergies between different kinds of vulnerabilities and threats; and possible responses to them. To give an obvious example, many populations in the Horn of Africa are vulnerable to local militias; they suffer from a failed state and lack of health services, poor nutrition, and at the same time an environmental collapse and possible further impact from climate change. Their terrain is also contested between radical Islamists and proUS forces. None of these issues can be resolved in isolation. Current research can be conveniently accessed via a Canadian research and information database regrouping thousands of electronic and bibliographic resources on Human Security catalogued according to key Human Security issues. The Gateway is accessible online at http：//www.humansecuritygateway.com where it catalogues a wide range of resource types including articles, reports, experts, bibliographies, events, courses, audiovisual materials, and organizations
Ⅳ.Critiques of the Human Security Paradigm
The Human Security agenda has attracted criticism from a variety of perspectives. Some argue that the concept is too amorphous, diffuse and idealistic to be useful. If one asserts an aspiration to provide peace, prosperity, healthcare, education, environmental goods and so on to populations of impoverished countries, it could easily remain an empty dream with no outcomes or pragmatic policy implications. A parallel criticism was frequently heard decades back when peace researchers started to insist that peace was only meaningful in a bundle, as ″peace with justice″ or ″with fulfilment of human potential″ rather than peace as absence of violent conflict. Critics argued that absence of violence might possibly be achieved in specific situations, but ″fulfilment of human potential″ is just hot air aspiration, a distraction from less grandiose but more achievable objectives. ″Human Security″ may also be subject to a critique as component of an elitist, dominating discourse (as are terms such as development, sustainability, equity, fairtrade, aid) that is occasionally ″deconstructed″ by postmodernist critics. Finally, some Asian critics have argued that Human Security can become simply a justification for neoimperialist interventions [6］.
Ⅴ.Growth Points
What scope if there for further growth and conceptual innovation in this area? The Myth of Development by former Peruvian diplomat Oswaldo de Rivero became influential in Latin America and subsequently internationally because it seemed to provide a more realistic—or pessimistic depending on your point of view—evaluation of the whole ″development″ project [7］. De Rivero explained in an interview that large areas of the developing world are not making economic or social progress; on the contrary they are regressing into ″ungovernable chaotic entities″：
Basically the government loses control over large segments of its territory and population. In such economically nonviable countries, poor income distribution, spiralling population growth and technological backwardness lead to social exclusion, which in turn stirs up ethnic, ideological and religious animosity. Large areas of the country fall under the control of warlords, drug traffickers, ideologically motivated guerrillas or a mixture of all three.…The country is in a state of permanent destabilization. This is what I call an ″ungovernable chaotic entity″ (UCE).[8］
De Rivero is pessimistic about change, but it may be that his honesty is a first step towards new models of intervention. The international community may recognise that the populations of many vast cities and their hinterlands are doomed to, perhaps, decades of poverty, violence, and environmental degradation： neither freemarket capitalism nor state interventions nor donor policies will make significant differences. Would there then be an argument for reverting to the ″basic needs″ concept and providing the entire population of metropolitan areas with a secure, if minimalist provision of, say, drinking water, food supplies, and protection against armed thugs before considering more grandiose aspirations?
The role of business has barely been raised in most discussions on Human Security. Moreover when it does arise, it tends to be in rather traditional debates： freemarketers against ″socialists″; proponents and opponents of globalization, etc. Much of the ″development″ agenda stems, for the most part, from a more interventionist, statist approach to national economies rather than a business perspective; and most of those who discuss Human Security tend to be based on governments, UN agencies, universities or other public bodies, rather than on corporates. Their economic thinking is often slanted towards public provision, price controls and equitable distribution rather than entrepreneurial flair and competitiveness.
The last decade has seen growing interest in the role of enterprise in conflictmanagement, resolution and peacebuilding. The relationship between enterprise and conflict has drawn the attention of NGOs such as Global Witness and International Alert; policy institutes such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the International Peace Academy; and intergovernmental bodies such as the World Bank and the United Nations. For some years, business leaders have also been driven, or felt motivated, to engage with this issue, for example through the Business Council for Peace, and the International Business Leaders Forum.
Emerging ideas concerning ″new global governance″ and trisector partnerships are closely linked with the above discussion; again they are almost completely missing from most of the discussions of human security in the past decade [9］. The influential Global Governance Project coordinated in Amsterdam defines its agenda asWebsite： http：//www.glogov.org/.：
…characterized by the increasing participation of actors other than states, ranging from private actors such as multinational corporations and (networks of) scientists and environmentalists to intergovernmental organizations (″multiactor governance″).…
…marked by new mechanisms of organization such as publicprivate and privateprivate partnerships, alongside the traditional system of legal treaties negotiated by states.…
…characterized by different layers and clusters of rulemaking and ruleimplementation, both vertically between supranational, international, national and subnational layers of authority (″multilevel governance″) and horizontally between different parallel rulemaking systems.
I.e., it is a move away from the simplistic notion that ″decisions″ are made and implemented only by national governments or the UN.
Our evermore networked societies inevitably produce new threats to the welfare of human communities and individuals; to respond, decisionmaking on the sensitive issue of security also must reach to new levels of cooperation. Human Security is one contribution to this continuing process.
(The author thanks Nicky Black and Mathis Goujon for assistance with an earlier version of this paper.)
Bibliography
［1］UNCHS, Human Security Now—Protecting and Empowering People, New York： United Nations Commission on Human Security, 2003.
［2］R.Jolly & B.Ray,The Human Security Framework,New York： United Nations Development Programme,2006.
［3］D.Mani,Human Security： Concepts and Definitions,Tokyo： UN Centre for Regional Development,2002.
［4］United Nations Development Programme,Human Development Report 1993,New York： Oxford University Press,1993.
［5］J.Galtung,″Human Needs, Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security and the War in Iraq,″ 20040225,http：//www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_HumanNeeds.html,20110705.
［6］B.Saul, ″The Dangers of the United Nations’ ′New Security Agenda′：′Human Security′ in the AsiaPacific Region,″Asian Journal of Comparative Law,Vol.1,No.1(2006),pp.135.
［7］O.de Rivero,The Myth of Development： The Nonviable Economies of the 21st Century,New York： Zed Books,2001.
［8］A.O.D.Urbina & L.I.Kuntz,″Interview with Oswaldo de Rivero： Debunking the Myths of ′Development′,″ 19990701,http：//www.unesco.org/courier/1999_08/uk/dires/txt1.htm＃e1,20110705.
［9］R.Wilkinson & S.Hughes,Global Governance： Critical Perspectives,London： Routledge,2002.
The need for governments and international organisations to gain a better understanding of ″security″ is ever more urgent. For example in the conflict in Libya in early 2011, many security dilemmas were visible： the protection of Libyan civilians, the security of the regime, whether and how the UN or NATO should intervene, whether Europe would be threatened with a massive refugee flow, how to protect or evacuate foreign citizens (including Chinese), how to secure food and medical supplies in the midst of armed conflict. Such events may be termed ″complex emergencies″ which often raise legal, military and humanitarian issues simultaneously. International law and practice do not provide clear guidelines on such situations, and responses can be random, contingent on a variety of factors. Traditional concepts of security, for example protection of national borders, are certainly still relevant and legally enforceable, but more sophisticated concepts are needed to respond to security dilemmas in today’s globalised world.
Human security as a concept was first developed within the UN system in the 1990s, and set out, for example, in Human Security Now [1］. The first section of this paper tracks the development of Human Security discourse, and also examines the broadening of the ″security″ concept in recent years. The second section reports on institutions with a specific interest in Human Security, for example within the UN system and in universities. The third section acknowledges some critiques of the Human Security paradigm. The last section reports on new directions that may enrich the Human Security agenda.
Various synopses and analyses of Human Security have been published, including an accessible account from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) [2］. A report for the UN Centre for Regional Development Perspectives from the early years of the millennium provides another good overview of Human Security in that period [3］.
Ⅱ.Human Security Contexts
Human Security encompasses at least the following： (1) a set of ideas and ideals concerning improvements to development and protection for communities living in complex poverty；(2) a transdisciplinary analysis of multiple factors in vulnerabilities and interventions；(3) a paradigm for UN and other development agencies；(4) a context within which to situate interventions, including those legitimated by ″Responsibility to Protect″ arguments； (5) a named discipline in academic institutions；(6) a terminology adopted by several nations, e.g.， Canada, to describe an orientation for international work in the past decade；(7) an opportunity for creative inputs to development/protection agendas.
Some key features of Human Security are that it should be peoplecentred and gendersensitive; multidimensional; interconnected; universal; and contextualised. It offers an analysis of the vulnerabilities of a specific population; and also recommendations for responses to these vulnerabilities, e.g. by intervention and development. Human Security Now lists issues requiring concerted actions which are relevant to most vulnerable communities, for example protection from violent conflict. The report overall notes that povertyrelated disease constitutes probably the most massive single threat to vulnerable populations [1］.
For some decades after the Second World War, ″security″ had been mostly conceptualized as the security of nationstates in the context of possible military conflicts, for example between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Global events and trends, particularly since the late 1980s, have to a great extent transformed the security agenda. One impetus was the changing nature of violent conflict, with more evident militarized intrastate, ethnic and religious conflicts. In the past two decades it became increasingly apparent that communities are also threatened by environmental destruction—induced both by climate change and direct human impacts—forced migration, epidemics including HIV/AIDS, and other issues.
In the 1990s, institutions and researchers began to propose alternatives to the conventional security agenda. In 1994, the UNDP extended policy debate using the then new concept of Human Security. The report set out a broad definition of Human Security, including seven core values： economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security (freedom from fear of violence, crime, and drugs), community security (freedom to participate in family life and cultural activities) and political security (freedom to exercise one’s basic human rights) [4］.
As Johan Galtung has pointed out, security in this sense represented a continuity from the ″basic human needs″ paradigm that was influential in developmental agendas from the 1970s [5］. Many of the humanitarian concerns were encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 25：
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Human security is thus a potentially useful collocation of two terms： one of them, security, carrying implications of realpolitik and lawenforcement; the other, human, with its connotations of the humanitarian tradition and a personcentred priority.
Several states began to use the rubric of ″Human Security″ to introduce new emphases in foreign policy and international work. In summary, they tended to argue： (1) the main referent point for security should be the individual, or the individual in a group or community; and particularly vulnerable people. Military security of nationstates remains important but is not always the overriding priority in every situation; (2) individuals or groups are subject to a variety of threats, of which military threats from outside the state are only one and often not the most significant; (3) the international community has a responsibility in some circumstances to protect vulnerable individuals and communities; (4) that the protection of vulnerable individuals and communities should sometimes take precedence over territorial issues, so in some cases there is possible tension between the security of the individual and that of the nation, the state or the regime.
One influential official document is ″Responsibility to Protect″, produced by an agency working for the Canadian government (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001), which tried to evaluate the criteria by which crossborder interventions should be not only permitted, but morally obligatory. The discussion was informed by the perceived failure of the international community to intervene in genocides or neargenocides in Rwanda and Bosnia; and more lately in Darfur. UN General Assembly Member States endorsed ″Responsibility to Protect″ in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit. This Human Security initiative thus had important practical outcomesWebsite： http：//www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/aboutrtop..
Security agendas have thus extended beyond concerns with national borders to include ″nontraditional″ security threats such as terrorism, organized crime, poverty, epidemics, drugs, hunger, natural disasters, illegal migration and refugees, environmental degradation, resource scarcity, poor governance. This extension is illustrated in the table below：
Table 1 Related Concepts to Human Security Agendas
Denomination
References object (security of whom?)Value at risk (security of what?)Sources of threat (security from whom and for what?)
Global SecurityWorld order, international communityGlobal stability and cooperationMilitarized regimesPowerbloc confrontation
National Security (political, military)The StateSovereignty, territorial integrityOther states, terrorism, substate actors
Societal SecurityNations, societal groupsNational unity, identityCultureclash, hostmigrant tensions, economic collapse
Human SecurityIndividuals, communitiesSurvival, quality of lifeArmed attacks (paramilitaries/ state agencies),extreme complex poverty
Continued from Table 1
Denomination
References object (security of whom?)Value at risk (security of what?)Sources of threat (security from whom and for what?)
Environmental SecurityEcosystem, humankindSustainabilityNature, humankind
Security of Marginalized GroupsGender relations, indigenous, minorities children, eldersEquity, identity, solidarity, social representationsPatriarchy, totalitarian institutions (government, religions, elites, culture, intolerance)
Ⅲ.Human Security Institutions
A number of institutions include ″Human Security″ in their titles, while other agencies deal with issues closely related to Human Security without making explicit use of the term. The major institutions can be conveniently considered in three broad categories.
1.The United Nations and Affiliates
At the UN Millenium Summit in 2000, SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan called upon the world community to advance the twin goals of ″freedom from want″ and ″freedom from fear″. As a contribution to this effort, an independent Commission on Human Security (CHS) was established, led by Amartya Sen and Sadako Ogata. In May 2003, after two years of deliberation, the Commission submitted its final report, entitled Human Security Now, to the SecretaryGeneral. This report, available on the internet, is perhaps the best readable summary of UN aspirations [1］. Human Security, and the associated Responsibility to Protect, is used widely in UN agencies.
2.National/intergovernmental Organizations
Several governments have been proactive in the Human Security agenda. For example the Canadian government stated in 2007：
As Canadians, we are committed to building a world where people can live in freedom from fear of threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking and the illicit trade of small arms. This new generation of threats shows no respect for national borders and inevitably becomes the source of our own insecurity. Human Security is a peoplecentred approach to foreign policy which recognizes that lasting stability cannot be achieved until people are protected from violent threats to their rights, safety or lives.
3.Academic Institutions and Research Centres
Many academic institutions undertake research and teaching in security issues, peace studies, disaster management, epidemiology, environmental sciences and other concerns of the Human Security agenda. One prospective benefit of academic research into the Human Security agenda could be to promote understanding of linkages and synergies between different kinds of vulnerabilities and threats; and possible responses to them. To give an obvious example, many populations in the Horn of Africa are vulnerable to local militias; they suffer from a failed state and lack of health services, poor nutrition, and at the same time an environmental collapse and possible further impact from climate change. Their terrain is also contested between radical Islamists and proUS forces. None of these issues can be resolved in isolation. Current research can be conveniently accessed via a Canadian research and information database regrouping thousands of electronic and bibliographic resources on Human Security catalogued according to key Human Security issues. The Gateway is accessible online at http：//www.humansecuritygateway.com where it catalogues a wide range of resource types including articles, reports, experts, bibliographies, events, courses, audiovisual materials, and organizations
Ⅳ.Critiques of the Human Security Paradigm
The Human Security agenda has attracted criticism from a variety of perspectives. Some argue that the concept is too amorphous, diffuse and idealistic to be useful. If one asserts an aspiration to provide peace, prosperity, healthcare, education, environmental goods and so on to populations of impoverished countries, it could easily remain an empty dream with no outcomes or pragmatic policy implications. A parallel criticism was frequently heard decades back when peace researchers started to insist that peace was only meaningful in a bundle, as ″peace with justice″ or ″with fulfilment of human potential″ rather than peace as absence of violent conflict. Critics argued that absence of violence might possibly be achieved in specific situations, but ″fulfilment of human potential″ is just hot air aspiration, a distraction from less grandiose but more achievable objectives. ″Human Security″ may also be subject to a critique as component of an elitist, dominating discourse (as are terms such as development, sustainability, equity, fairtrade, aid) that is occasionally ″deconstructed″ by postmodernist critics. Finally, some Asian critics have argued that Human Security can become simply a justification for neoimperialist interventions [6］.
Ⅴ.Growth Points
What scope if there for further growth and conceptual innovation in this area? The Myth of Development by former Peruvian diplomat Oswaldo de Rivero became influential in Latin America and subsequently internationally because it seemed to provide a more realistic—or pessimistic depending on your point of view—evaluation of the whole ″development″ project [7］. De Rivero explained in an interview that large areas of the developing world are not making economic or social progress; on the contrary they are regressing into ″ungovernable chaotic entities″：
Basically the government loses control over large segments of its territory and population. In such economically nonviable countries, poor income distribution, spiralling population growth and technological backwardness lead to social exclusion, which in turn stirs up ethnic, ideological and religious animosity. Large areas of the country fall under the control of warlords, drug traffickers, ideologically motivated guerrillas or a mixture of all three.…The country is in a state of permanent destabilization. This is what I call an ″ungovernable chaotic entity″ (UCE).[8］
De Rivero is pessimistic about change, but it may be that his honesty is a first step towards new models of intervention. The international community may recognise that the populations of many vast cities and their hinterlands are doomed to, perhaps, decades of poverty, violence, and environmental degradation： neither freemarket capitalism nor state interventions nor donor policies will make significant differences. Would there then be an argument for reverting to the ″basic needs″ concept and providing the entire population of metropolitan areas with a secure, if minimalist provision of, say, drinking water, food supplies, and protection against armed thugs before considering more grandiose aspirations?
The role of business has barely been raised in most discussions on Human Security. Moreover when it does arise, it tends to be in rather traditional debates： freemarketers against ″socialists″; proponents and opponents of globalization, etc. Much of the ″development″ agenda stems, for the most part, from a more interventionist, statist approach to national economies rather than a business perspective; and most of those who discuss Human Security tend to be based on governments, UN agencies, universities or other public bodies, rather than on corporates. Their economic thinking is often slanted towards public provision, price controls and equitable distribution rather than entrepreneurial flair and competitiveness.
The last decade has seen growing interest in the role of enterprise in conflictmanagement, resolution and peacebuilding. The relationship between enterprise and conflict has drawn the attention of NGOs such as Global Witness and International Alert; policy institutes such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the International Peace Academy; and intergovernmental bodies such as the World Bank and the United Nations. For some years, business leaders have also been driven, or felt motivated, to engage with this issue, for example through the Business Council for Peace, and the International Business Leaders Forum.
Emerging ideas concerning ″new global governance″ and trisector partnerships are closely linked with the above discussion; again they are almost completely missing from most of the discussions of human security in the past decade [9］. The influential Global Governance Project coordinated in Amsterdam defines its agenda asWebsite： http：//www.glogov.org/.：
…characterized by the increasing participation of actors other than states, ranging from private actors such as multinational corporations and (networks of) scientists and environmentalists to intergovernmental organizations (″multiactor governance″).…
…marked by new mechanisms of organization such as publicprivate and privateprivate partnerships, alongside the traditional system of legal treaties negotiated by states.…
…characterized by different layers and clusters of rulemaking and ruleimplementation, both vertically between supranational, international, national and subnational layers of authority (″multilevel governance″) and horizontally between different parallel rulemaking systems.
I.e., it is a move away from the simplistic notion that ″decisions″ are made and implemented only by national governments or the UN.
Our evermore networked societies inevitably produce new threats to the welfare of human communities and individuals; to respond, decisionmaking on the sensitive issue of security also must reach to new levels of cooperation. Human Security is one contribution to this continuing process.
(The author thanks Nicky Black and Mathis Goujon for assistance with an earlier version of this paper.)
Bibliography
［1］UNCHS, Human Security Now—Protecting and Empowering People, New York： United Nations Commission on Human Security, 2003.
［2］R.Jolly & B.Ray,The Human Security Framework,New York： United Nations Development Programme,2006.
［3］D.Mani,Human Security： Concepts and Definitions,Tokyo： UN Centre for Regional Development,2002.
［4］United Nations Development Programme,Human Development Report 1993,New York： Oxford University Press,1993.
［5］J.Galtung,″Human Needs, Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security and the War in Iraq,″ 20040225,http：//www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_HumanNeeds.html,20110705.
［6］B.Saul, ″The Dangers of the United Nations’ ′New Security Agenda′：′Human Security′ in the AsiaPacific Region,″Asian Journal of Comparative Law,Vol.1,No.1(2006),pp.135.
［7］O.de Rivero,The Myth of Development： The Nonviable Economies of the 21st Century,New York： Zed Books,2001.
［8］A.O.D.Urbina & L.I.Kuntz,″Interview with Oswaldo de Rivero： Debunking the Myths of ′Development′,″ 19990701,http：//www.unesco.org/courier/1999_08/uk/dires/txt1.htm＃e1,20110705.
［9］R.Wilkinson & S.Hughes,Global Governance： Critical Perspectives,London： Routledge,2002.